Jump to content

Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Add to lede

Per WP:lede I think we need to expand the lede at least a little bit. I suggest adding a sentence about their most notable accomplishments - their work on Facebook - something like "JIDF gained media attention themselves when they overwhelmed and effectively took control of other groups on Facebook in 2008." It would also be a place to summarize any notable criticism of the group. Banjeboi 21:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Go for it. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion

Resolved
 – Please consult our policies on non-free Content criteria
Further information: Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review § Image:JIDF_FB_Sample_2.jpg

JIDF responds to "Political Discourse" Quote

Hello everyone. The old me would immediately strike that quote from the article upon reading this from the JIDF, but now I'm trying to actually work with people. Apparently it seems the quote was taken out of context? Are we to trust the RS or the context provided by the JIDF? Also, they mentioned that the group in question is now gone. Facebook deleted it. Therefore, this claim about "political discourse" is now rendered inaccurate. Within the past few days it appears that Facebook has concurred that it was, in fact, an anti-semitic group. --Einsteindonut (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The London Daily Telegraph article says "Facebook had declined to take the “Israel is not a country!” group down, saying it did not take action against “legitimate political discourse”, according to the JIDF." That's the source. That's what a neutral press source says they said. Even the JIDF says "Facebook seemed to be treating all of them in general as "legitimate political discourse." The argument of the JIDF seems to be that Facebook was referring to the whole constellation of groups on the subject, not just one or some of them. So I changed "group" to "groups" in the sentence complained about, and put the name of the group in the next sentence since that sentence referred to one group. That should resolve the issue. --John Nagle (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that also brings up the question of whether the numerous complaints we mention were targeted specifically at the IINAC group, or all of these groups in general (I doubt we can know for sure, with our current sources). Ultimately, I have to go with what reliable sources say, and I would consider both the Telegraph and the Post pretty reliable for this purpose. Does Nagle's tweak address this reasonably well? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Not really. I'm taking somewhat of a breather with this article and with Wikipedia. This is too frustrating for many reasons. This article (along with many articles on Wikipedia) highlights a lot of irrelevant things and doesn't do the subject justice. The entire Facebook intervention section is too long. This article has watered down (not included) important information while simultaneously highlighting unimportant information. One cannot just pull a little detail here and there from various media sources to get an accurate picture of things. It's just a shame how far from the truth Wikipedia actually is. I made two minor edits which I feel are important. I am hoping that people don't revert them. First of all, I added what I feel is an important quote from the JIDF regarding their belief that the group "actively promoted hatred, violence, murder and genocide."I feel that is important. Secondly, I took out part of the quote from the JIDF about what Facebook DOES go after (porn, etc.) - It veers way of the topic. I feel my edit makes it more concise and are more true to the subject at hand. Again, this is an article about the JIDF. --Einsteindonut (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Just made some more edits which I think make it a lot better. I feel if we are going to spend so much time on Facebook, then that sample image is important since many casual readers might not be on Facebook. Furthermore, was a screenshot of the JIDF website necessary? How many Wiki articles about organizations feature a screenshot of their website? I removed it to make room for the sample, which I think should be fine now that the JIDF released it under the proper license. I really believe my last few edits are important in understanding the JIDF and I'm sincerely hoping that people don't just automatically revert them with either no good reason or just because they feel like it. I didn't take anything out other than what the JIDF claims Facebook does go after. All I have done is try to add more important information so that casual readers can understand more about the JIDF as I feel much of what is happening here is a watering down of sorts as to what they actually do and why they do it. --Einsteindonut (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Above, you write "It's just a shame how far from the truth Wikipedia actually is". I, in turn, could easily list a hundred truths about this paradoxical surprising world that lie far outside your pale, and that's a shame too. What is needed is an attitude of tolerance and openness, a willing to ACCEPT truths that go against the party line and the conventional wisdom. Truth is LEAST likely to be found in those who approach politics with an indignant censorial attitude.
"There is perhaps no phenomenon which contains so much destructive feeling as 'moral indignation', which permits envy or hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue." -- Erich Fromm, Man for Himself, 1947, 4
-- NonZionist (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Andre Oboler as "social media expert"

(Aside: User Pldms restored Oboler as "researcher" not "expert," which is consistent w/our previous consensus. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC))

Personally happy either way, the words "social media expert" were a direct quote from a description by the press. The article of consequence is in a footnote some where. I don't think we had a concensus on the third word, though I am glad there is concensus on the "social media" part as while I am also many other things (please don't rise to the bait! ;) ) they are not as relevant in this context. Oboler (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Oboler, could you point the way to the references that describe you as being a social media expert? Forgive me if this is a redundant request as I'm a neophyte. aharon42 (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Searching Google for "Oboler" "social media expert". Excerpts:
  • "Dr. Andre Oboler is a social media expert. He holds a Ph.D. in computer science from Lancaster University, UK and is a Post-Doctoral Fellow in Political Science at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. He is currently a Legacy Heritage Fellow at NGO Monitor in Jerusalem, and edits ZionismOnTheWeb.org - a website countering on-line hate." Bio from "Oboler.com ", one of Oboler's web sites.
  • "Dr. Andre Oboler is a social media expert. He holds a Ph.D. in computer science from Lancaster University, UK and is a Post-Doctoral Fellow in Political Science at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. He is currently a Legacy Heritage Fellow at NGO Monitor in Jerusalem, and edits ZionismOnTheWeb.org - a website countering on-line hate." Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs site
  • "Research carried out by Social Media expert Dr. Andre Oboler, a Legacy Heritage Fellow at NGO Monitor, reveals that it was EI, not CAMERA, that manipulated ..." Zionism on the Web, one of Oboler's web sites.
  • "Social media expert Andre Oboler, a Legacy Heritage fellow at NGO Monitor who runs ZionismOnTheWeb.org, acknowledges that CAMERA made novice ..." The Jewish Week.
Hmm. --John Nagle (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The term "researcher" is both objective and verifiable, whereas "expert" is verifiable but not objective. The term "expert" is a matter of personal opinion. I happen to think that Alan Dershowitz is an expert on the Arab-Israeli conflict whereas Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, and Jimmy Carter are just a bunch of fools and anti-Semites who pretend to be experts on the subject. Quite obviously, there are people who would disagree and who think the opposite. In the interests of neutrality, I think we should use "researcher" instead of "expert", especially since it is a reasonable, available, and verifiable alternative to "expert". ← Michael Safyan (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel the term "expert" is a matter of personal opinion. Think about lawsuits. There are certain "expert" witnesses who give testimony, etc. I personally don't feel that "researcher" is a good term since anyone can be a researcher and it doesn't pay any tribute to Dr. Oboler's expertise. Regarding your comparison of the Chomsky's of the world to the Dershowitz's of the world, it's very much the same in the legal world. One side has set of "experts" representing one side and the other side has the same. While I agree with your opinion of the experts with whom we disagree, we cannot deny that they still have a certain amount of "expertise" on the situation. They are, in fact, scholars or in Carter's case, he has been actively involved in diplomacy. Unfortunately, their credentials make them "experts" even though we disagree with their expert opinions.--Einsteindonut (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how the existence of "expert witnesses" has any bearing on the subjectivity/objectivity of the term "expert". Are you suggesting that there is a strict, technical, legal, and -- most importantly -- objective definition of who does and does not qualify as an expert? As for "pay[ing] tribute to Dr. Oboler's expertise", this has very little to do with Dr. Oboler. I greatly admire and respect Dr. Oboler. However, my desire to ensure that Wikipedia adheres strictly to WP:NPOV trumps my personal feelings regarding Dr. Oboler. Moreover, on several pages in which the subjective wording favored the Palestinian side, I supported a more objective wording, and it would be both inconsistent and hypocritical of me if, when the subjective wording now favored the Israeli side, that I would suddenly tolerate such a violation of WP:NPOV. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I made this edit, I'll explain my reasoning here. I came across the reference to Dr Oboler. My field touches upon social media and, since the name was unfamiliar, I thought I'd look him up. My concerns were:

  • Only one peer reviewed paper in the right area (and I wasn't sure about that instance either).
  • Unable to find talks given at conferences in the field.
  • No citations. I didn't find even casual references from other social media people.
  • A very narrow focus. No writing about social media which didn't involve Israel / Palestine dispute.

Now 'social media' is pretty vague, and a very immature field of research, but I would have expected more from an expert, and certainly a broader interest. The few explicit descriptions of him as such were short biographical items that might well have come from his web site.

Apologies to Dr Oboler if this feels like I'm denying his expertise. Israel / Palestine and the web is a valuable area of research, and he seems to know his stuff there. But would I seek out his opinion on the spread of rick rolling? Probably not ;-)

I'm not really a wikipedia editor, and am not familiar with this article at all, so take this as the mere opinions of an amateur. shellac (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Pldms/Shellac, with all due respect, Dr. Obler has, in fact, given his opinion on this phenomena. You may find it here.

Actually though predictable... that last comment was rather funny. :) As pointed out above, I actually don't mind either way. That said, I am more than happy to answer people's questions about my research. John Nagle has highlighted the RS reference that uses the "Social Media Expert" tag in a suitably independent manner in The Jewish Week. In response to Michael Safyan, using RS references is how we avoid NPOV... so we don't actually have an issue here either way. Pldms, please rest assured that there are other peer reviewed paper currently in review (including one on Wikipedia as it happens) another (related to the topic of this article) in fact "in press", i.e. accepted and will be available shortly. As you know, these things take time. A couple of the other piece are clearly published, but as invited contributions rather than peer reviewed contributions. I seperate them on my publications as this is good academic practise, the pieces themselves are however heavily refered to and quite popular. Finally on the question of citations, there is a new report out from the Anti Defemation Commission, please note the two citations in it to my work and the quotations. More on the technology side, please note this news article at O'Reilly. On Conferences, the presentaiton on the internet Panel at the Global Forum has already been discussed and a full list of talks (including a public lecturer at Bar-Ilan University last November) can be found on my website. If anyone speaks Spanish, there is a new source related to the JIDF available here. I obviously have the English, but only the translation is a RS as the English is not yet published. This is I think all unrelated to the article, but it does answer the questions people have raised above. The only other point I'd raise is that the media clearly are relying on me as an expert in this area as evidenced by the various journalists who interview me on the topic. This is a different standard to academia, but just as important for Wikipedia which regards both academic publication and media reports as RS. Oboler (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Spanish source is not reliable as regards your qualifications which are described differently from the way they are given on your Wiki homepage.

’El doctor Andre Oboler es un experto en Medios de Comunicación Social. Tiene un master en Ciencias de la Computación de la Universidad de Lancaster, Reino Unido, y un Doctorado en Ciencias Políticas en la Universidad Bar-Ilan, en Israel.

’Dr Andre Oboler completed his PhD in computer science at Lancaster University, United Kingdom in 2007. Andre is currently a Post Doctoral Fellow in Political Science’

When I lectured at Oxford before publishing a book which qualified me as an 'expert', I was introduced as a 'researcher', on my own suggestion. There is nothing dishonourable about the term. At least in my area of academic competence, 'expertise' is recognized on the basis of a rather substantial publishing record, preferably including monographs or at least one book-length study that is positively appraised as an original contribution under conditions of peer review.Nishidani (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I concur. Researcher is a notable but NPOV term. I can't wait untill I publish this year and present at a conference and then I'll get to be called "Researcher" aharon42 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd endorse John Nagle's suggestion. "Andre Oboler of NGO Monitor" would have provided the context I was missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pldms (talk • contribs) 12:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Worth considering. Though wouldn't that imply Oboler's statement was made in his role as a fellow of the NGO Monitor? And if so, would such an implication be problematic? I'm not familiar enough, offhand, to recognize if that's a potential quagmire or not. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-semitic comment explaining why some people seem determined to erase all useful info. here?

1. - the photo which shows a sampling of the groups the JIDF targets. The JIDF recently re-licensed the image[1] stating: "We, the JIDF, hereby release the following image under the GFDL license" - I believe this should take out all concerns about the photos use.

2. - I feel that it is important to explain the JIDF's thoughts as to why they acted against the group in question, especially since the bit about the "drop down menu" is in here. If that has to be there, then I feel in the spirit of neutrality, so does clarification as to why the JIDF targeted that group. It was not (as some editors have suggested) the extension of some "flame war." According to the group "actively promoted hatred, violence, murder and genocide."[2] - and that is why they targeted it. The way we have it now is clearly misleading as we start by discussing some completely unrelated controversy and then mention all these other groups thought the group was "anti-semitic" but we don't fully explain what the JIDF thought and why it acted. I feel w/out stating this, it is very much misleading the casual reader. If we have to include all this "background context" information (which I feel is irrelevant) then we should fully express the real reasons why the JIDF acted IMHO.

I have been trying very hard to not take out the things that other editors feel is important and would appreciate it if others would pay me the same courtesy. --Einsteindonut (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Einsteindonut there is a lot of things you don't understand
i) A self published site even without a known address cannot generate a license, this web site can disappear anytime, and no one knows about the owners!!!
ii) what in "JPost is in-between quotes" and I Think I explained before what is the difference.
« PuTTYSchOOL 09:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Putty. I'm not sure if that is correct regarding the license. From my understanding, it should be fine like this. Secondly, I don't think I understand what you are saying w/ regard to the JPost article. I believe it is important to express why the JIDF acted to differentiate from the other context in which the other editors feel is important. In that one paragraph we have all this background information about the flame war (which has nothing to do with the JIDF,) and we have information of how many other organizations thought the group was anti-semitic, but what is lacking is why the JIDF acted. I feel that is extremely important for the casual reader to understand. That is why I added that there. Perhaps others can contribute their thoughts. If we can please discuss it first, I'd appreciate it. I stopped trying to revert everyone else adding information I thought was irrelevant so I'm hoping others can afford me the same courtesy. These are two minor (but important) changes to the article, as I feel JIDF actions might not even be understood by the casual reader unless we provide this useful information.--Einsteindonut (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I left this on Putty's talk page: Putty, I really don't appreciate you reverting that edit without trying to build consensus upon the situation and discussing it. I also feel your comment was anti-semitic (regarding "Jpedia.") Completely uncalled for and I believe you owe me (and all Jews on Wikipedia) an apology. My editing had nothing to do with Judaism or being Jewish. I am trying to make the article better and to educate readers and you are clearly trying to interfere in my effort to do so, without trying to collaborate or build consensus. Your reversions only inspire edit wars. Many people agreed that the photo was helpful, and now that it has the proper licensing, it should be fine. The other thing I added was important as well. I'm very disappointed that you had to go in and revert this w/out discussing it.--Einsteindonut (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
what is this cousin!!!! it is very clear that Wikipedia is for the whole world, unlike JPost which is for Jews only. i.e. you must wait for the issue to be solved, what make this "anti-semantic", can you explain, or be more reasonable and say anti-Einsteindonut as this was against your wishes.« PuTTYSchOOL 11:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
JPost, is the largest English newspaper in Israel, it's not only for Jews. The JPedia comment was uncalled for. The image removal seems weak to support.--Saxophonemn (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"JPost, is the largest English" "and respectable" "newspaper in Israel", I agree, all of us know this fact, but not for the entire world like Wikipedia, and this what makes JPOST put the words in quotes :-), about the Image after taking in consideration the old discussions about it, at least Einsteindonut must wait for a confirmation about his new ideas, About the photo helpful or not, my comment was we can’t violate the copyright, if you can remember. (+translation)« PuTTYSchOOL 12:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Putty, The Jerusalem Post is "not for Jews only." The article is already being referenced many times throughout this article about the JIDF. We've been discussing the issues with the drop down menu and I finally figured a way I could live with that---by further explaining why the JIDF targeted that group. You weren't really part of that ongoing discussion. Again, the image really helps a reader to understand and I do not believe there is a licensing issue. I'd be a little surprised if anyone really had a problem with any of my edits. I thought we were getting places, and now you are reverting my edits again and telling me that this isn't "Jpedia." Perhaps you should read some more about the Jerusalem Post before you start saying that "it is for Jews only." The fact that someone would say that, fling "Jpedia" comments around and be a Wikipedia editor is something I find deeply concerning about this whole Wikipedia project. Please tell me the specific reasons why you reverted the edits. --Einsteindonut (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I checked the talk page, I did not find a reason, so I removed it, then you revert my edit and added this section after reverting mine not before, so I checked your point of view, I found it unreasonable, so I put my comment then waited for you to revert it back by yourself for more than one hour, finally I reverted it till the issue is resolved. About referancing the JPOST article, the JPOST is a WP:RS but the words you selected from the article was in quotes and this means they are not JPOST words« PuTTYSchOOL 12:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The image was originally deleted because it was not free. Since the source of the image now makes it quite clear that the image is free, the rationale for the image's deletion no longer applies. I think that if anyone believes that there are copyright issues with the image that, rather than relying on a now outdated discussion on the image, that he/she should open a new discussion at WP:NFCC on the image. As for the Jerusalem Post,... it is used as an RS for numerous articles on the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It would be inconsistent for this page to treat JPost any differently than do the other Arab-Israeli conflict articles. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the image was never deleted (from Wikipedia). It was merely removed from this article.
Second, we've already had an outside opinion at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Image:JIDF FB Sample 2.jpg that there are copyright problems with the logos in the image. I've asked for further clarification, but I don't think the screenshot "owner" can give permission to use the images in the screenshot if the copyright in those images is held by a third party, which is the case in this instance. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The "expert opinion" was that those original arguments to that argument were regarded as "irrelevant" at the time.[3] However, I think it is still up for discussion since the license changed. --Einsteindonut (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I had these comments from User:Apoc2400 in mind: Yes, the logos are surely copyrighted. I don't see how the image improves the article anyway. I removed the image because 1) The logos are copyighted as others explained above. 2) This article is about JIDF and the image doesn't show anything about the JIDF.
In any event, I think the matter is still unresolved despite the GFDL license, so I asked for an opinion at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Logo copyrights, a subheader of the previous discussion. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, some people disagreed with those comments as well and found the photo to be useful. Again, I think it is useful as many people are not on Facebook and don't see how these groups are laid out and with the terrorist logos and everything. If we don't include the sample, perhaps we should provide a list of these examples, so that people understand that they didn't and don't just target one group (as again, that's what this article is obsessing on...) Again, my concern is that this article is having a tendency to mislead casual readers about this organization. --Einsteindonut (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's seems very clear in this edit revolving around this article that some people don't think this article should be here so it seems some are working to ruin any helpful information about the organization whatsoever. It is my hope that this will please stop. --Einsteindonut (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OKay, I was against the first AFD, and my comments almost was about the article contents at the time of this AFD, and a web group is not notable, my POV is that I don’t think that the facebook group "Israel is..." which establish notability to JDIF is even notable (it is a nonsense group). But this does not mean that I’m against the current contents, but I'm aginest ALL facebook groups like this one. By the way, what about the second AFD .)« PuTTYSchOOL 13:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you think the JIDF is a "web group" or a "Facebook group" perhaps you shouldn't be editing the article. It's very clear through your very first comments that you have issues with this article in general. Anything helpful I have tried to include in this article has been quickly reverted by you without consensus. I'm trying to make people understand more about what the JIDF is. You have had a problem with the JIDF ever since it arrived on Wikipedia. The least you can do is either not edit this article, or not revert important edits, or if you are going to work on it, at least try to help improve it rather than quickly reverting anything I am trying to do. --Einsteindonut (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
You are losing the way going in subways, anyone can check the article history, sometimes I was returning back you edits, now the discussion is about what you did with the article is it right or wrong, my POV is what you did is something wrong, you believe it is right. what you are trying to convenes me, do I must believe that the JDIF site generates licenses? so let wait for other editors comments, do you want my POV, this article will be nominated for deletion for the third time cause of such behaviors.« PuTTYSchOOL 13:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, and last time I checked articles cannot be nominated for deletion due to the fact that one editor doesn't like another editor's editing. Your POV is that this article shouldn't exist because you don't like the organization in which it is about. Therefore, it seems you are doing everything in your power to take anything useful in this article out. --Einsteindonut (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Stop going around facts, and don't talk according to my POV, it is mine and you don't have any right to talk instead of me. Why do I must like or dislike JDIF, it is one of 2,500,000 articles? Also I’m not the one who does not respect the image deletion decision and discussions. What I see like any one, the image is deleted before and you returned according to your POV!« PuTTYSchOOL 15:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
What facts? The fact that you can't even get J.I.D.F. right and you continue to revert important edits? The fact that you don't approve of this organization and do not want this article to exist?[4] Let's wait for other people to respond and see what they have to say about the new licensing of the photo before you freak out and change important edits. If you look at the discussion[5] you can see most people seemed to think the photo was important, but the license was wrong. However, the license has now changed. Most people would actually agree that this photo is useful information and that the only issue with it was the licensing, which is now resolved. My other edits also help balance out all the irrelevant information which misleads readers as to why the JIDF took over that group. I feel it is very important for the casual reader to understand these things and I have discussed it at great length here.--Einsteindonut (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I’m sorry as I don’t have enough time to re-invent the weal, the image was deleted before and the discussion was closed, but Einsteindonut Don’t ever think that you can do anything with any Wikipedian article, as you heard before "focus on the contents not on the contributors", you method will not change anything and this is not your article!.« PuTTYSchOOL 15:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The image was not deleted and the discussion was not closed, it was moved [here. I am talking about the article, and you have gone out of your way to revert my edits which I discussed before I made them and you have yet to provide any decent reason for your decision. There are two major changes I made---i re-added the photo because the license issue is now GONE. I also added one sentence reflecting why the JIDF acting against the one group. I think it is fair and neutral as there is all this contextual information which might confuse the reader. I've been discussing this for a while with many people. You haven't been around--only to revert my edits apparently. --Einsteindonut (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
As a neutral editor I can state that it is clear that Putty School does not have a logical refutation of Eisteindounut's position, at least in terms of copyrights issue. I do worry that it might be due to a weakness in forming his comments because of a a language barrier. Eisteindounut makes stakes out clear positions and supports them in a pellucid manner. I am going to go to Puttyschools talk page and offer to help him translate these issues into his native language. But otherwise how can we encourage him (and a little bit Eisteindounut-even if his reverts are a response to Puttyschools intransigence) to desist from edit warring and resolve this here on the discussion page??aharon42 (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to discuss how to edit the article. Do not use this page to question the motives or otherwise impugn other editors -- that's a serious violation of our civility standards for cooperative editing. For example, the previous two section headings are unacceptable attacks on a person rather than on article content/edits. Einsteindonut, you really need to go back and change the headings do more neutral wording, about edits and not about any person/user. Also, please desist in arguing ad hominem against your interlocutor. HG | Talk 23:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right, HG. Sorry. I have tried to make things more neutral. It's just frustrating as I have put a lot of thought into these edits and he seems determined to quickly revert anything I try to do. I'm working on my reaction to these things, but I'm also upset that he made a slurt about "JPedia." My motivation is to make this article good, not to hurl ethnic attacks onto others based upon their race, religion, and/or ethnicity. Sorry if my reaction is getting more attention than the original "Jpedia" comment which caused it. I wish I could say that I am surprised that no one has gotten on his case for his comment.--Einsteindonut (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Apparently Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) and Puttyschool (talk · contribs) are edit warring over inclusion of the questionable screenshot. I thought we'd resolved that issue over in the non-free image discussion. Looking at the JIDF site, their current list of enemies is Hezbollah, MSNBC, Wikipedia, Obama, and Stormfront, [6] which is different from the list in the screenshot. Not sure what to make of that. --John Nagle (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Nagle, it's actually about a few things. An anti-semitic "Jpedia" comment, and the statement from the JIDF as to why they targeted that group.
Furthermore, the JIDF does not have a "current list of enemies" on their site. I think you must be confusing their newsfeed and/or recent blog posts with what you interpret as a "list of enemies" for some reason. That image is on their site as an example of Facebook groups they target. It is also on their Facebook group page and their Facebook fan page. --Einsteindonut (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
What usually happens with contentious articles on Wikipedia is that the article gets hammered down to bare, verifiable facts from neutral sources, plus carefully cited and attributed quotes from partisan sources. Bear in mind how thin our information about the JIDF really is. We have maybe three mainstream press references where the reporter actually collected information, rather than reprinting something. We've never been able to get solid sources for basic who/what/when/where info about the organization. If they get more press coverage, the article can be improved. Until then, we've sort of exhausted the available reliable sources. --John Nagle (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'm happy with the current version of the article, so long as the screen shot turns out to be Kosher (as I feel it will be.) I was able to reconcile my differences with the "drop down menu" problem with one sentence explaining why the JIDF took action. If you read all my thoughts on the matter, I just believed that the article didn't properly explain the JIDF's motive and it was making it appear as if this was an extension of a "flame war" which it was not. --Einsteindonut (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Question for Malik Shabazz (talk • contribs)
Hi Malik, Comparing your last edit of the article with my last edit, I want to make sure that you agreed upon the following points.
You agreed upon:

  1. Keeping an image just deleted few days ago as it was violating copyright.
  2. Removing a fact “The organization's web site was created in May 2008”
  3. Adding a “liable” sentence "FACEBOOK: Why do you aid and abet terrorist organizations?"
  4. "… hatred, violence, murder and genocide” do you believe these are encyclopedic words and we must include in Wikipedia and they appeared "within quotes" in JPOST.

Care to comment on this« PuTTYSchOOL 13:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I need to justify not deleting material that was added to the article by other editors, but the information in question is supported by reliable sources. I've written about the image and it is under discussion. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:JIDF FB Sample 2.jpg listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images

I have listed Image:JIDF FB Sample 2.jpg at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images Its entry is at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 September 6#Image:JIDF FB Sample 2.jpg. The reasons are the same as when I removed the image from the article a while ago:

1. The logos in the image are not free, and JIDF cannot change that. The current GFDL tag is wrong.
2. This article is about JIDF and the image doesn't show anything about the JIDF. This article is not about anti-semitism online in general. Also, it is not our job to convince readers that JIDF's work is righteous or important. Keep that on your own website.

I would also like to say that:

3. The JIDF does not own this article. Wikipedia does, so it must have a Neutral point of view. If you are editing this article solely to make it show JIDF in a better (or worse) light, then you are not helping.
4 Don't call other editors anti-semites or anything like that. This should be obvious, but we also have policies about Civility and No personal attacks. Especially, off-wiki Harassment is completely unacceptable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks you for your help, Apoc2400, on pt #1 and I agree on 3, probably 2 and esp 4. HG | Talk 02:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Apoc, with all due respect, I don't think I've seen you around and I'm confused- are you the decision maker? How is the decision made? With regard to your points, it is also not Wikipedia's job to mislead readers. I see no indication that that Wikipedia is serving as a platform to convince readers that the JIDF is doing righteous or important work. However, the work they are doing must be accurately portrayed by Wikipedia and the proper motivations for their work must be cited properly. With regard to your third point, my own interest in this article is to make it accurate. And finally, anti-semitic comments should NOT be tolerated by Wikipedia. No one is calling anyone any names, but when there are anti-semitic (ie. "Jpedia") comments being flown around, then that in and of itself flies in the face of WP rules regarding Civility. I'm not sure what all these points you have made have to do with the photo at hand.--Einsteindonut (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: An editor has proposed deleting the image from Wikipedia. To add your comment, go to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 September 6#Image:JIDF FB Sample 2.jpg. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

To repeat what I've posted elsewhere, a naturalistic screen shot which might include the Hamas or Hezbollah logos might be illustrative. But this image is not naturalistic; it's constructed by JIDF in the hope that we include it. It is therfore propaganda or advertsing not something informative through being representative.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that the current GFDL it is a fake license, and the image will be deleted soon, What gives a self published site the rights to generate licenses, I did not remove it from the article only as Apoc2400 added a link under the image to follow the deletion discussion page.« PuTTYSchOOL 15:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Found JIDF officer list on Facebook group

Readers of this archive should note that the list of people in the facebook group discussed here were not necessarily officially members of the JIDF organisation. Specifically, since this discussion was archived, Dr. Oboler has clarified that he accepted the invitation to the facebook group, was given the title of "officer" by the group administrator, however to be clear that he was not a JIDF official, his role was adjusted to "external consultant". This update has been brought to you by the letters B, L and P: a lot of the material below is speculative, not based on reliable sources, and should not be used in Wikipedia articles. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what to do with this, but we have some names at [7].

Admins:

  • David Appletree (Israel) (creator)
  • Malchiel Gruenwald (Israel) (May be pseudonym; famous name, see Malchiel Gruenwald, deceased.)
  • Peter
  • Ben Hecht (Los Angeles, CA) (May be pseudonym, famous name, see Ben Hecht, deceased.)

There's also a long list of "Officers", which includes Andre Oboler. --John Nagle (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

An "officer" but also an "external advisor" which doesn't sound very compatible. It does neverthe less mean that he needs to be careful of COI issues over here. I wonder whether Peter is "Peter Bergson" a user with that id ws responsible for the following diffs [8] and [9]--Peter cohen (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2008 (UThttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force&action=edit&section=10C)
PeterBergson (talk · contribs) == Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) Not sure if this will make it more clear but Check the == Relation« PuTTYSchOOL 19:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't going to say that. However, according to our article, the historic (now dead) Peter Bergson worked with the historic Ben Hecht which means the use fo the name looks to follow a pattern.-Peter cohen (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Rather than invoke Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, perhaps it would be best to see if HG can sort out the obvious problem here, which is rather delicate. One must, at any rate, commend Dr.Oboler for not using a pseudonym, as evidently appears to be the case with the senior administrators of the JIDF. Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I was raising COI as something for people to be careful about. I haven't gone to the board. If you look at Talk:David Langford and User Talk:Rplowright you can see that I have history of looking for pragmatic solutions to COI issues.
As a published academic researcher, AO is already "out" under his own name. The core admins may not wish to be so, hence the pseudonyms. BTW, comparing the ;ist of officers with the editors of this page, there is a third name that has caught my eye.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should be sensitive to COI but isn't the proper cure to this problem just to insist that everyone make proper edits, provide evidence, and refrain from doing edit wars. Otherwise, it begins to take on a tone (even if it is unintended) of "Let's expose the JEWS". And believe me, sooner or later, that is going to be very newsworthy. It will distract from the goals of WP. So we should be very strict about following WP guidlines, but not so quick to expose and inadvertently censor. Maybe we could even offer to help rephrase an editors position in a kind and supportive way so that it is NPOV. aharon42 (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to give one example. Malik SHabazz is very consistent about helping, guiding, insisting on staying on point, and only then does he warn. He is fairly consistent in his logic. Others here would benefit from modeling their editing after him. I say this even though I have disagreed with a couple of his editing decisions ( But agree with the vast majority of them). aharon42 (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The point to be clarified, (I am not familiar with the whole thread), is whether or not Dr.Oboler stated his conflict of interest as an officer of the JIDF before editing this article on the JIDF, or do we know this only by virtue of John Nagle's link? Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. If Dr. Oboler is a JIDF "officer" or at least "External Advisor," then might this alter our usage of him as a reliable source on the JIDF? Well, at this point Dr. Oboler is only quoted regarding the anti-semitism of the targeted Facebook group. But if he is a JIDF officer, then his view isn't much different than simply JIDF's same assertion that the group should be targeted as antisemitic. HG | Talk 03:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with HG. So why not just ask him? aharon42 (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Clarification. I agree that there is an issue if Oboler is an officer in JIDF. But I do not agree that there is a COI issue necesarily if he has acted as an external advisor. WP would be then penalizing him for being an expert in his area and for giving his expert advice to a group, even though we are ok with him giving his advice to us. By the way, would it help if we also had other references that opine in a similar way to Oboler to buttress his comments? aharon42 (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to address the source issue (i.e., Oboler as source) separately than the COI issues. Users are not required to declare a COI (re: Nishidani's q above). Moreover, Einsteindonut has been pretty upfront about his point of view. As WP:COI says: "Remember: an editor with a self-evident interest in the matter turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight. Even if the changes they advocate are hopelessly biased, treat them with respect and courtesy, refer to policy and sources, and be fair." Nonetheless, if Oboler and/or Einsteindonut have an interest in this article as JIDF officers (or advisors), then their approach to editing should probably be different. The guidelines states: "An editor with a conflict of interest who wishes to suggest substantive changes to an article should use that article's talk page." This means that those w/COI should give us info, on Talk, but let the editing be done by users w/o a COI. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI, the "officer list" has been deleted, and an official JIDF statement and explanation with regard to this thread is here. Furthermore, my one hour or so usage of the "sock" name "PeterBergson" doesn't mean a thing except for my regard for Peter Bergson. I tend to agree w/ the JIDF about this new direction. Seems highly speculative, based upon original research, outside of the scope of Wikipedia rules, etc. I thought we have already established that Facebook groups are not reliable sources. If that is not the case, then we could gather a lot more info. about JIDF activities and start including them into the article. Speaking of JIDF activities, while I do not know Spanish, I think it would be interesting to read the most recent piece about the JIDF as it appears to be about the big Hezbollah group they also targeted on took control of. I feel that it would make sense to get that into the article, if possible, but I am not sure about Wiki's rules with regard to non-english language sources. --Einsteindonut (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the link. I read it, and was bemused to find that consulting the JIDF's Facebook page to ascertain something of it relevant to the description of it on Wiki, is regarded as 'snooping', and 'original research'. This is to put it mildly, placing a weird, rather paranoid, cast on what editors are supposed to do in Wiki. When I read:

It's very disappointing (yet not surprising) that some of them would stoop so low as to potentially threat, harass, and/or possibly try to hack into our computer systems in order to gain information about us.

My reaction is mainly stylistic (a) 'threat' = 'threaten', and(b) 'to stoop so low as to potentially threat(sic), harass, and/or possibly try to hack into our computer system' is a non-sequitur. One cannot be 'disappointed' that people ostensibly stoop so low as to do something that they have never done (potential,possible). One can only imagine, with such slipshod language, that the disappointment lies in not having elicited the kind of 'scandal' about the fringe, little-known, JIDF, that would do its notability profile a world of good as publicity. Threats, harassment and assaults by ostensible antisemitic hackers in Wiki have been vigorously imagined, and, when the crucial test came, nothing of the sort emerged.
As to the privacy, there has been absolutely no invasion. I, and I think the several older hands who have worked here to help an imperilled article (fringe) gain some semblance of stability in Wiki, couldn't personally care a whit who is behind the JIDF. The information on its ideological position is upfront, for all to see, as contained in the pseudonyms David Appletree, Malchiel Gruenwald, Peter Bergson, Ben Hecht, borrowed from figures in the radical Zionist tradition associated with Ze'ev Jabotinsky, its militant underground arm, the Irgun, and the post-war fringe opposition to a secular democratic state. It is deliciously appropriate (though one cannot rule out coincidence) that the real historic David Apfelbaum (Germ.=Appletree), who fell in defence of the Warsaw ghetto, was, apart from his martial prowess as a valiant officer in the Polish army, director of the department of communications of the ŻZW (Jewish Military Union). Much else can be inferred but, as they say in Madrid, a buen entendedor, pocas palabras. Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
p.s. A word of advice. The link you direct us to, after it insinuates wiki workers are engaged in some dastardly plot, ends with a threat

We intend to to do everything in our power to defend and protect the people and things which are important to us. When we are hit, we hit back harder---with every resource at our disposal. We are fans and supporters of disproportionate response.

That is on record. This is a very large and democratic community and looks on this stuff as both puerile and, if pursued, sanctionable.Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. I hadn't known about Dawid Moryc Apfelbaum. Thanks for the link. Regarding all the proofreading, not sure why that is needed. Perhaps the JIDF should send their stuff to you first for editing. Also, not sure how Wikipedia can put sanctions on the JIDF. If you meant that I could be sanctioned, that seems to be the ongoing threat around here with regard to anyone who supports the unpopular POV. If it happens for some reason, it happens. --Einsteindonut (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Einsteindonut you removed my comment from admin noticeboard, two comments from two different places, it is not by mistake, so I suggest to block your account forever« PuTTYSchOOL 12:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Your note to Einsteindonut should be moved to his talk page. It is not germane to this page. Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
To this page may be, but it is a complement to this section« PuTTYSchOOL 13:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This section appreciates it very much. Regarding these allegations, it's all been thoroughly explained on my user page and on the admin board itself. It was all an accident and Putty's comments weren't the only one's which were butchered. I come here to make as many innocent mistakes as possible apparently. --Einsteindonut (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. Anyway, it looks like the JIDF now says "David Appletree" is a pseudonym. At one point, I had put "(pseud?)" after the name, but that was taken out. Should it go back in? Is there a template for "possible pseudonym"? --John Nagle (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Where does it say that? --Einsteindonut (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
No source of course, just the fact that the names used by three administrators are all self-evident pseudonyms. One of them you yourself used. No one cares who he really is, if he is using a pseudonym, as appears probable. But a formal acknowledgement by someone in the know, like yourself or Dr Oboler, would help us register the name correctly. I.e. David Appletree or 'David Appletree'. People intent on getting things correct on the JIDF should not acquiesce knowingly in a possibly misleading impression given by the text they have helped to edit.Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Nishdani, you are correct that Wp editors should refrain from obfuscating any information we are trying to clarify. JIDF howerver is not obligated to tell us their names. If those names are pseudonyms (and they probably are) then we should note that in the article itself. And let's all stay very focused on improving the article, not casting dispersions aspersions (thanks to Nishidani) . I know that sometimes its due to an editors poor grasp of English or informal logical fallacies but I once again extend an offer to help any struggling editor with these problems if they will help me become a better Wikipedian. SO many help pages to read, so many. aharon42 (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
.You are saying exactly what I said. I fail to see the point about 'casting dispersions', (casting aspersions). I don't edit any more, but am quite happy to help if people think I can be helpful.Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I have no clue, but it appears from the sources that he just goes by "David" now, and while the blog posts did used to say "by David Appletree" now they say something like "The JIDF felt Compelled to Share this at..." or something. From one of the sources I think it said says that he wanted his last name withheld. It seems to be more of a collective thing and giving more anonymous credit where it is due by just saying "The JIDF" now. Regarding the use of "pseudonyms" I'm not sure if we can do that or not since Facebook is not a reliable source and we are unsure who is behind those accounts and we cannot necessarily prove that those aren't their names (though they most likely are not all things considered.) It all seems like too much speculation to me and I believe we need to stay with what we know from the RS--Einsteindonut (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
When I lasted looked, the essays were signed by a David Appletree. It still remains true that it makes a small but important difference whether Wiki writes this as a real name or a pseudonym. If no evidence is forthcoming from RS, I venture to say the default writing should be 'David Appletree'. For there is no evidence that David Appletree is a real person, whereas there is indirect evidence that strongly suggests it is a pseudonym. When one is faced with this dilemma, one goes with whatever evidence, indirect or otherwise, there may be, and one does not assume something for which there is no evidence whatsoever.Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe we have to stick with RS, don't we? I'm not sure we can assume anything based upon "whatever evidence, indirect or otherwise" other than what is on their site and/or from a RS.--Einsteindonut (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I find that link interesting. However there are a couple of points I wanty to make.
  1. The JIDF would be wise to look at National Institute on Drug Abuse#NIDA and Wikipedia. Attempts to directly modify your own entry could produce this sort of negative publicitly. On the other hand, an overt precense here on the talk page with or userid of "JIDF" or "David Appletree" or whatever "saying you've got this fact wrong." or "I think you're being unfair to us when you say..." might actually faclitate better communications than the rather arcane communication process currently being used. Obviously, we as Wikipedia editors have a right to disagree with your suggestions but it would make everything look cleaner and mroe above board.
  1. WP:NORapplies to the content of articles. Finding things out on your subpages and mentioning them here on the talk page are not violations of that rule. Saying here that, given JIDF's overt mission to change what it sees as hostile coverage on the net and that JIDF is watching this page, it is highly likely that JIDF members are active here does not violate WP:NOR. Putting it in the article would violate it. Sayign that users [name deleted] and [you know who I mean] are clearly JIDF stooges and therefore we shouldn't believe a word they say, in fact we should ban them here and now, might violate WP:AGF and WP:NPA, but it does not violate WP:NOR.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Dr Oboler has had the integrity to use his own name. I trust in his demonstrated bona fides to be so kind as to clear up a trivial matter that involves absolutely no invasion of privacy. He should know since he read without objection a JIDF page listing him as an 'officer' and 'external advisor', a position one would not accord without some extensive contacts with the administrators. True today we have been given a denial that he is 'formerly' (correct, (eheu, as often one must JIDF articles in English) to 'formally') associated with the JIDF. I presume this hopelessly messy and self-contradictory retraction is pro forma, for whatever motives. The article simply requires, to meet standards of quality of accurate information, a word that enables us to write either (a) David Appletree or (b) 'David Appletree'. If one wants a proper page on Wiki, one should defer to its insistence on precise information, particularly since the request is absolutely innocuous.Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Things generally work out better when those with a COI wear it on their sleeve, as I believe Oboler has. At least one other editor has not, unfortunately. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
OK Fine, you got me. I admit it. There is a serious COI here. I'm very interested in accuracy and NPOV, ya see. As I've stated, the article looks pretty good as we have it now. However, I have done some completely original Facebook research. It's unreliable, but I think Putty and at least a few other editors (NObodyOfConsquence, NonZionist, etc) might have been members of the "IINAC" group. Then there are those who probably still wish it was around. Of course, I'm only speculating like the rest of you and it's not based upon anything. (Hoping you have a sense of humor and don't throw another rule book at me.)--Einsteindonut (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I want to tell our WP:OR editor, that I never joined any facebook group before, but most of his sock-puppets are members of the facebook group “FUxx Isalam”. What a great researcher, I think 50 like such WP:OR editors each with his own socks can destroy the great WikipediA in few months« PuTTYSchOOL 12:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Who said I meant you? Guilty conscience, have we? ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Please, Luna. It was obvious to everyone that you were referring to Einsteindonut. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
What was "obvious" about that? Seems to me that you're predisposed toward that conclusion, which I admit I find interesting. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It is obvious, because everyone here realizes that only Einsteindonut seems to take personal offense from misstatements -- or perceived misstatements -- about the JIDF on this page. That said, I would avoid accusing Einsteindonut of a conflict of interest and take is word for it that he is just an avid fan of the JIDF. Also, given that he also seemed to take personal offense on the Hebron article for what he perceived to be misstatements there, it may simply be his personality... since he's new here, one never knows. In any event, absent definitive proof the contrary, let's assume that issues of COI have been adequately addressed. If it turns out I'm wrong,... well, we'll deal with it later. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
EinsteinDonut writes "NonZionist ... might have been [a] member of the "IINAC" group". What leads him to make that false insinuation? Is it my opposition to fascism, racism, war, terror, censorship and ethnic supremacy? Could it be that his wrong assumptions stem from a xenophobic bellicose ideology? Of course that is just speculation. I hope EinsteinDonut finds it humorous. (For the record, I've never been ON Facebook or even NEAR Facebook.) -- NonZionist (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

All kidding aside, I have been reading some Wikipedia rules lately and I feel that this thread might wish to be a bit more careful with regard to WP:BLP as these rules apparently apply to ANY Wikipage? Please correct me if I'm wrong. --Einsteindonut (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A small point, half of the time, wiki rules are flagged around at others merely for their symbolic value as rhetorical gambits. If anything violates or looks like violating a rule, it is more convincing to provide a diff, or cite the phrase, along with the appropriate rule. Otherwise, the reader is tempted to dismiss this as just a bit of monitory waffle devoid of substance .Nishidani (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To continue the COI discussion: I'll have to disagree with Michael Safyan above. At this juncture, it seems to me that there are enough signs to be concerned about Einsteindonut's interest in JIDF, including the use of the SOCK, for which he's been blocked, his editing pattern, his work in promoting and posting the disputed images, his one-sided argumentation here, and his apparent link to JIDF (as noted via Facebook). Of course, there's no need to "prove" COI because having a COI is not itself prohibited. The problem is how the editor handles their interest. It doesn't need to be big deal and there need not be a bad reflection on the user; for instance, Dr. Oboler seems to be handling it quite well. All that's needed is for Einsteindonut to make editing suggestions through the Talk page and let the editing of the article be guided by consensus. I encourage Michael to continue to serve as Einsteindonut's mentor, if that's still feasible. Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 14:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally. Of previous COIs that have come across, User:DeafMan aka David Langford is an example of someone who handles the COI well, using the talk page to point issues out and to bring attention to when he has changed the article directly; User:Rplowright was problematic being an agent trying to portray a client Rosalind Plowright in a good light and removing critical material devrived from Reliable Sources rather than producing evidence to show that this material was wrong. User:Oboler is closer in conduct to the former example; User:Einsteindonut and socks to the latter. And whether ED is identical with the "Peter" listed as an admin of JIDF or merely a fanatical supporter doesn't matter, he's still clearly conflicted and is letting his support for the organisation get in the way of neutral editing.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second

Why are we "investigating" this group? Wikipedia does not do that, external reliable sources do. I think we are wasting time on these people. They continue to throw fits on on their blog about their Wikipedia page. --mboverload@ 04:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the article itself is a waste of our time, but tend to agree that the squabbling of late is pretty pointless. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
a source of troubles to WikipediA ;) « PuTTYSchOOL 15:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force/Archive_10&oldid=1165951181"