User talk:Oboler/evidence

Case was itself an instance of lobbying Wikipedia
This case was pushed by a Wikipedia user who worked for an advocacy organisation. Evidence that it is an advocacy organisation can be seen in footnotes 37 and 38 at or in the internet archive. (NOTE: rest of this redacted by arb clerk. Privacy issues.) — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Penalties based on over-reaction
The story by EI gave an alarmist view of the problem. This cased a degree of panic and a rush by some users to advocate penalties as harsh as possible in order to curb the imminent threat. There was in short a mass hysteria. This resulted in the initial penalties that were applied being increased. One of the admins had stated a preference for such penalties ahead of being involved in the investigation, the accuser (as noted above, an interested party with their own political agenda) then got to decided if they wanted a set of admins including this one to manage the case. My point is that a tone towards excessive penalties and judges predisposed to the same were factors in this case... admins who had not already become involved should have examined it. 

sock puppetry, meat puppetry, good faith recruitment mixed up
I provided a detailed statement at

I believe the charges of sock puppetry that are the justification for certain penalties are in some cases misplaced. The actions undertaken could at worst be described as attempted meat puppetry, something which is only discouraged not banned. The idea I assume being that even if people are recruited to "help" in a meat puppetry way, they will either learn how Wikipedia works, or leave. They are only as much of a problem as any other randoms who join Wikipedia and don't "get" it. No organisation has the numbers to be a significant burden on Wikipedia (more so than the random problems) and in this case there doesn't appear to be evidence of more than co-operation amoungst existign editors... something that can be shown to occur on any project page. Infact the Wiki Project Palestine page noted the dispute and it could be said was directing partisan views into the dispute resolution.

Misleading evidence (Rebuttle)
It is asserted in the evidence above "Evidence amassed by Huldra and presented by Tiamut" that there are a number of differences between the CAMERA group and the Wikipedians for Palestine group. I find these distinctions misleading. Comments are below, the sources for these various statements can be seen at and.

* 1. This group never recruited neophytes to edit Wikipedia; only editors already in "good standing" were allowed to join. - The group did say it would only take existing editors, but this was based on the need to check them out before hand. Only people who were both pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist were allowed to join (according to welcome page).

''* 2. Unlike the Isra-pedia group, the existence of this group has never been hidden. It has always been public and purposely so (Yahoo does permit "unlisted" groups).'' - The group's name and descirption were availabel in order to attract people, the messages were not public (a choice made by those running it) this allowed their discussion to be kept secret. When asked by an admin examining the camera case for access to verify they did nothing wrong, the group and archives were deleted.

* 3. Unlike the Isra-pedia effort, this group has always been explicitly committed to NPOV. - The Isra-pedia effort publically said the same thing. We have no idea what was said in private in Wikipedians for Palestine. We do no that insisting on anti-Zionist views amoungst editors (something not required in order to help imrpove Wikipedia content on Palestinian content) shows a POV position.

* 4. This group has always been independent and never bankrolled and backed by any organization, let alone one as well staffed and funded as CAMERA. - This is an accusation about "powerful Jews", I personally find it offensive. Given there are no costs involved in such activities, it is also an irrelevent point. Finally there is evidence of organiations far larger than CAMERA being used to promote Wikipedians for Palestine.

5. This last point may help explain why Isra-pedia had more message traffic in one week than this group had in the last seven months. - Another interpretation would be that a new group generally gets lots of messages. An old group tends not to. We don't know the traffic this other group got when it started in Dec 2005, nor do we know how many people it had at its peak back then. If it had less people it may be due to the careful vetting process they had (and high rejection by them of potential candidates, and by those they tried to recruit of their idea). It may also be that they too moved else where and there is now no public listing (conjecture). The level of traffic only shows people were talking alot. The measure of disruption (or improvement) on Wikipedia is measured by edits.

Rebuttle to CJurrie

 * CJCurrie seems to be attacking me in any way possible. Please see this request appears after I asked an admin for help as CJCurrie's posts on that page were starting to feel like harassment and good faith was getting increasingly hard to maintain. This post seems to be his response. This discussion he refers to is available on Wikipedia here  - I see nothing wrong with this discussion and his monitoring of my conversation seems like stalking. As does this accusation suddenly after I ask as admin for advice as the "discussion" at the link above was getting way out of hand. His "apaology in advance" in the above holds little water with me after he previously made assumptions (see ) and when corrected by myself on the facts tried to argue to justify his position. How can someone justify assumptions about my life when I not only tell them they are wrong but provide evidence? Getting it wrong once is one thing, but persisting then making another assumption aimed at stiring up trouble certainlg feels like harassment. When that comes immediately after I asl for help on an admins page... that feels like harassment coupled with stalking.
 * To be clear I fully support the IP check, but would like advice on how to deal with this situation with CJCurrie now. I really can't maintain good faith about this users intentions any more and I don't know what to do about it. Oboler (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * CJCurrie's evidence based on misspelling is disingenuous, at best it shows the other person wasn't sure of the spelling and looked up to check it... and I unfortunately mislead them with my mistake. Or maybe they just can't spell. I doubt CJCurrie is an expert in the frequency of misspellings. The IP check should however resolve his inquisition. Appologies for replying below someone elses evidence and makign work for others to fix.Oboler (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for additional item to be considered in arbitration
I originally raised this here User_talk:Rlevse and it was suggested I add it to my edivdence so it could be dealt with as part of this mess. Sorry for any extra work :(

CJCurrie has been conducting a campaign against me in a manner that I believe needs the attentions of the arbitrators. I request their help in resolving this as this attack seriously undermines Wikipedia and my desire to continue editing here. To my mind the current actions suggest one person can make Wikipedia suit their POV if they are an experienced enough editor and put in the time.

The attack appears aimed at me in retaliation for exposing the Palestinian side of this story. CJCurrie appears to have a strong POV in these issues and is acting in a partisan manner to promote his POV and remove references to sites he dislikes.

It was suggest that I propose remedies… at minimum I think the damage done to Wikipedia needs to be undone. This would involve reverting a number of CJCurries edits and perhaps asking Project Israel / Project Judaism (which most of the affected articles will fall under) to review his edits to relevant articles over the last month. False accusations against myself and my site need to also be considered properly so they can be dismissed. One resolution (if the site on consideration by the admins is notable enough) is to create a page on it and add something to the talk about the determination. CJCurrie’s attempt at censorship should result in some sort of reprimanded / penalty. As it relates to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, already under general sanctions perhaps a stronger penalty is needed. His comments make his intention clear enough.

Specific complaints

 * Attempt to stir up Wikipedia editors against me (harassment)
 * Unfair accusation and witch hunting
 * Violations of NPOV – removing opposing views
 * Violations of NPOV – attacking opposing sources
 * False charges against me (done in bad faith)
 * Vandalism complete removal of source

False charges against me (done in bad faith)
On his evidence (below) CJCurrie made a groundless accusation that another user and myself were the same person. I supported his call for a UserCheck in the hope the other person was not in the same country and the result would be a clear negative.

When the User check showed “inconclusive” I went through both our histories and showed on the usercheck page how myself and the other person were editing at practically the same time prior to this accusation. CJCurrie persisted with his accusation stating “It may be noted that IP checks aren't a foolproof method of detection.” His comment says "(interpret this as you will)".

In another discussion CJCurrie initiated on the Admin discussion board he made accusation against me (addressed below) but seems to have also convinced JzG to add my site to his personal list of unreliable sites (despite evidence in the discussion to the contrary). JzG's reason for adding it there is based on generalisation not related to my site and even goes so far as to suggest it is “At best a polemical site unsuitable as a source or external link, at worst, a copyright violating hate site.” See. This is groundless and libellous (as you will appreciate given the other evidence below which address exactly what IS at my site). In Wikipedia terms it is an attempt at censorship of a source based on CJCurrie and JzG (perhaps only due to relying on CJCurrie too much) adopting POV.

'''I would like these baseless allegations and this listing removed by JzG, I would also like an apology from them. They may also need to be warned about making baseless allegations that sites are “copyright violating hate site”.'''

Attempt to stir up Wikipedia editors against me (harassment)
This can be seen here. Disagreement with a published op-ed is POV commentary on off Wikipedia content. The outing likewise was not on Wikipedia and in fact that page (at the time) on suggest people google a specific username. I later provided the actual evidence (on this page) but was told not to do that. (Apologies).

NPOV, unfair accusation, witch hunting

 * Unfair accusation and witch hunting
 * Violations of NPOV – removing opposing views
 * Violations of NPOV – attacking opposing sources

The third allegation at by CJCurrie (and the only one related to Wikiepdia) was that  “Dr. Oboler once had a habit of adding "Zionism on the Web" links to sites that he visited” the links provided are to the article New Antisemitism (changes) and AUT boycott (changes).

Given my site is about combating online antisemitism, and given the AUT boycott falls within the scope of a conversation on new antisemitism, these links were most appropriate. In the first case I added two links, one was to an article written by an academic in the field for my site, the other was to a blog by an expert which I host for them. The blog was removed and I discussed this with person who removed it and did not revert it. At the second site he cites I added two links to my site and one to a news article. The links to my site go to the “AUT Boycott Resource Pages” – the most complete collection of primary material on the boycotts, and to the “Protest against the boycott”, a section of this site with original material, notably audio recordings of speeches at the anti-boycott protest and photographs from the protest. The protest was a significant item of news, see the picture and caption here, and the bottom of the JPost article reposted here.

CJCurries problem seems to be that he doesn’t like the anti-boycott POV being linked to. He went on to note that “Wikipedia's article about the site was deleted as non-notable”. As [user:Relata_refero] pointed out here, a source does not need to be notable for it to be used as a reference. Further, I thought at the time (2005) that the archive may be notable, it was speedily deleted and I discussed what notable was with the admin who did this. You’ll note it has never been re-added by myself or anyone else. CJCurrie argued at one point that there were too many links in Wikipedia to my site given its level of press coverage. When I challenged him on this he agreed those links had not been added by me. Further exmaination (e.g. below) shows that one reason for them was that my site was the primary source for a number of historical article. This itself should make it more notable, not less notable. Things however have changed since 2005, and the site now could be said to be notable, having got a number of press and academic references. I pointed this out to CJCurrie here. He did not seem particularly interested. The way this progressed cause me to doubt his good faith and ask an admin for help. Then he demanded the UserCheck when I asked for help resolving what was fast turning into dispute.

A resolution on whether Zionism On The Web is (as things stand now) notable enough to have a page would be welcome. The evidence is I think all on this page but not really being considered by anyone. Whether it is notable or not only came up because of CJCurries attacks on it. '''One part of a remedy could be having a page, with a comment in the talk section, so this doesn't happen again. '''

Vandalism complete removal of source
Despite the discussion on the admin page not recommending any action, and there being indication that no action was required, CJCurrie went and removed all reference to Zionism On The Web. These were removed for different reasons, many of which either look reasonable on their own, or require someone with an interest in the topic to notice the changes and question them. The links to Zionism On The Web are (according to CJCurrie) from many users. They are on different topics. The removal for different reasons of every single link suggests an intent and hostility to my site and vandalism (for POV reasons) by CJCurrie. Particularly following a discussion about the reliability of the source, which did not support CJCurrie’s position this strokes me as a problem. That my site holds copies of historic documents and references on the topic of Zionism not available else where suggests these edits actually degraded the quality of Wikipedia, and again I stress that it appears CJCurrie did this with an over all plan and intent. The EI article accused CAMERA of rewriting Wikipedia, CJCurrie has just done exactly that. Many of the links he removed had been included for over 2 years, suggesting others without his biases did not find any problem with them.

Examples of removal:

1. Comment: “Cancellation of boycott: removed dodgy statement from equally dodgy source”

This removed reference to the peace vigil. This is a deletion of the line “A protest in support of academic freedom and for Peace in the Middle East took place on the lawn outside the meeting” – a statement of fact, and of a reference relating to it. This is POV pushing / removal of opposing views. The phrase "in support of academic freedom and for Peace in the Middle East" is I believe directly from the fliers advertising the event (it is not Wikipedia commentry).

This had been here for years before be removed it.

2. Comment: It's not immediately clear why AJ6's criticism would be as notable as the ADL's or Brian Klug's

Content removed is about a statement by AJ6, a movement that represents British Jewish students in their final years before university. Their statement expressing the specific concern of these pre-university students in light of an academic boycott are relevant, topical and not able to be substituted by either of the sources he mentioned. Again this is removal of a relevant POV.

This had been here for years before be removed it.

3. Comment: I doubt this is the best possible source that one could find on "dhimmi" status

Content removed is a reference to “A history of Muslim antisemitism and anti-Zionism” by Dr Denis MacEoin. You can see his Wikipedia page to assess his expertise in the topic.

4. Comment: remove non-notable essay As above (same article, same link). (I don’t know why this was used as an external link AND a reference in the same article, obviously only one is needed)

5. Comment: Here -- I'll add a more notable pro-Israel site in its place. I'm not against the inclusion of this perspective, just of the specific site in question. 

This is a clear statement of his intent in the comment.

The content change: Adds a link to Jewish Virtual Library, this is following a complaint after he removed a link to source documents on Zionism stored at Zionism On The Web. The edit is here.

There can be no grounds for removing that links as it is provides references to key documents on the topic (some hosted on my site, some external) and is not substitutable by the additional link he added after the complaint was made.

Removal of links that started some Wikipedia pages Then there is the blatant removal of links to sourced material at Zionism On The Web. The links removed all point to a history of Zionism which is hosted at Zionism On The Web and is relevant to each of these pages. The removal is commented by CJCurrie as:

6. Comment: “Removed "Zionism on the Web" link. This site has been spammed onto other article pages.”

However examining the pages shows these to be links that often were their from the creation of the page (mean Zionism On The Web was the source that helped expand Wikipedia and not a spamming addition)

6.1 For example, In the article Vaad Leumi at least it has been their since creation and was added by an Admin, Humus sapiens and it stayed there for some years until CJCurrie recently decided to remove it.

6.2 Another example of this, Judah he-Hasid:

Added by Humus sapiens (an early edit shortly after creation) and removed by CJCurrie

6.3 Another example British Mandate of Palestine

Removal of content example: 

7. Comment: The source documents are useful, but the slanted intros are more than a bit problematic. Does anyone know of other sites offering the originals, without editiorial comment? 

The source document is no longer linked to by Wikipedia because of CJCurrie’s objection. Wikipedia is the poorer for it and this was clear POV editing.

Removal of link to online source at Ber Borochov:

8. Comment: (none) If an online source is available, then it should be cited. What possible grounds can there be for removing this?

Other examples of removal, definition of Zionism: In this instance (Jew) he went to some lengths to eliminate the link to the set of definitions of Zionism compiled at Zionism On The Web. 

And at anti-zionism eliminating a link to the definition of Zionism.

9. Comment “Removed "Zionism on the Web" link. This site has been spammed onto other article pages, and there's no way it deserves to be referenced in the intro”

There is much more to say on this and many more examples, however I think this is sufficient to establish that good faith may not be applicable in this instance and that one editor has gone to some trouble to undertake a massive manipulation of Wikipedia outside of the formal processes, and inspite of discussion suggesting the contrary in the admin noticeboard.

The discussion at the admin notice board and his accusation against me here as well as user:JzG's description of my site feel like bullying, however this is only damaging to me personally. The attempt to wipe reference to Zionism On The Web out of Wikiepdia (despite admin discussion saying this would be going too far and despite this being the best and some times only source for information) is damaging to Wikipedia as a whole. The references to Zionism On The Web have been placed by many known editors and admins who have found it a reliable online source. That CJCurrie has a POV objection to a source is not sufficient grounds for undoing the work of these many editors over the last few years. Oboler (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)