Talk:Jeff Ooi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Articles for deletion

This article was nominated for deletion on January 31, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is supported by WikiProject Malaysia.

This project provides a central approach to Malaysia-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Re:Need Help on defamation attempt

The following is an exact duplicate of a message by an anonymous user under IP address 165.228.129.11 on User talk:Aruton pertaining his persistent changes. Aruton agreed to have this moved here. This is to help better expose the discussions to relevant parties.

Hi. Saw your work on the jeff page. Some time ago a user posted false information putting 2 companies names into the page. There is no proof of the work spoofing but the way jeff targeting the 2 companies made them look bad. Their customers are like Citibank, EY, IBM etc, get into trouble when their vendors are "framed" on purpose by competitor act. Without "PROOF", Wikipedia is not a battleground nor a place to defame people going around the basic human ethic. There is a more matured user which reverted back to the origin. Please check and keep this place clean. Thanks.

Referring to WP:CENSOR, WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV, regardless of whether or not the accusations are true, Jeff Ooi did mention and pointed out these parties in his blog, which are facts (referring specifically to the reporting, not the contents of his investigation). Neither was the purpose of publishing this information to defame; it was only to report Jeff's activities. While the original version implies bias towards the opposing party, the revised version by 165.228.129.11 contains not just censorship of targetted parties, but also unverified dismissals by the authorities towards Jeff Ooi and Malaysian media aligned to the Opposition. Wikipedia is not the position to censor simply because it offends or hurts the reputation of a specific party. Neither is it, as you have stated, "a battleground nor a place to defame people", applying to both sides. User:Earth has taken the logical step of marking sentences in the section with {{fact}}. - Two hundred percent 16:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Referring to WP:CENSOR, WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV, I read the stories and this is funny. I have to jump in to fix Two Hundred percent's statement for both sides. Jeff Ooi did mention the parties as he perceived he has his points, which is TRUE. He did not mention he found the "PROOF" for what he assumed. [Find one, link here to solve UFO mistery.] If Wikipedia is indeed for public to put in the "facts", why do you remove a public statement which is ALSO telling the "facts"? As you have stated "it was only to report Jeff's activities.", indeed the Aussie statement is ALSO to report Jeff's activities. You further stated "Wikipedia is not the position to censor simply because it offends or hurts the reputation of a specific party." Why do you censor the Aussie statement which she'd asked for "revised statement of truth"? Your actitivity does draw suspecious when you are over writing your own 2 statements above. That draws double standard slaping the face of Wikipedia purpose. - Benson, KL, Malaysia, 17 Jul 2007.

Fine. Here are two crucial links to cite Jeff's claims. The articles link to most, if not all of his investigative entries:
Thanks for the citing. That is one of Jeff's blog on his personal opinion and analysis. Can you show which line on the blog shows the fact that there is proof of the report being spoofing? The whole finding can you find any link to the unrelated company Nextnation got anything to do with it? Technically, Jeff did not find the proof or verify his own study to find a proof, which does not constitute a proof at all. That is the whole point we have to stay neutral until a concrete evidence is found.
Look deeper. There is proof on SMS received by this person, but the article did not get telco confirmation the said sms = spoofing (just like nobody can claim the 1000 spam mail in Gmail, means Gmail = spammer. This is called generalize.)? It did not even clarify if that is user subscribed service (the fact is, there is no proof from telco, and I'd like to know as eager as you are to solve the mistery!), telco own system issue or simply because that particular supplier did not clean up recycle numbers. Either one of the issue, telco or that supplier's own lousy system has the problem, not the myth of spoofing. "We do not simply generalize issues" based on own assumption, are we this childish or we think the public are?
For the defination of spoofing, it's mistery SMS without a trace, or "fake MO", which is impossible to get through the system. If we want to keep neutral as you quoted, simply taking personal anger to side on what a user started without citing facts or generalize different issue is biased. Too personal. Shall we stay in neutral ground and cite here when Jeff finds the proof or abuse vikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.228.129.11 (talk • contribs). (Kristy 18 Jul 2007)
The entire blog above shows that this supplier Macrokiosk having a bad system and their clients are affected, including political parties and corporations. Non of the issues raised has actual proof of "spoofing". If this supplier did let his clients did SPAMMING or SPAM and CHARGES money, penalize them real hard, but not generalize the issue. As you said, neutrality and verifiability is important, we can comment on facts once it's found, but not names or put is as "manage to find proof" when it's not. False citation itself void the article like you said. Until we find the facts with citation, I totally agree with you to keep it neutral. But what are you going to do with the person who started and repeatedly remove neutral ground posting which I'd complied 100%? Sad to see such abuse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.228.129.11 (talk • contribs). (Kristy 18 Jul 2007)
The Australia Telstra girl did show herself as 165.228.129.11 (talk. She asked around and learned fast, which is all Wikipedia about. Let her focus on finding neutrality and verifiability. She is helpless when someone did not help adjust her not up to standard phrases by remove her phrases totally, further bombarding her with Wikipedia tools, instead of rephrase her phrase correctly. I think we should focus on the topic and rephrase the already near neutral sentences. BiotechMaxxim 19 Jul 2007
On the other hand, the Aussie IP didn't produce any citation to his claim, so his report, whether or not it's valid, is void. Assuming, however, the same statements was mentioned on major publications, or official statements from any high ranking member of the Malaysian government, it wouldn't had been denied for mention in the first place because it originated from a reliable source and should be verifiable.
There is no objection to criticism from either side; but neutrality and verifiability is important. - Two hundred percent 02:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
And to clarify again, I am not interested in defending the validity of Jeff's statements. The fact of the matter is Jeff stated these accusations, and the occurrence of the accusation is a fact. I also found an unusual use of an unrelated entry pertaining the Malay Mail's falling readership. What's the purpose of that? - Two hundred percent 03:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not follow that far, but holly God! Are we allowed to quote "He managed to show proof that companies like Macrokiosk and NextNation are involved is SMS spoofing, and also MCMC's lack of control over such problem", should it be "He is trying to show proof that companies like Macrokiosk and NextNation are involved is SMS spoofing, and also MCMC's lack of control over such problem"? That sentense is not telling the "fact". In which law in the Internet to twist this "factual quote"? Guys this is too far! - Benson, KL, Malaysia, 17 Jul 2007.

If the passage isn't neutral, rephrase the passage. The primary reason the Telstra edits were undone was because it was written in a manner favouring the opposing party, as opposed to writing as a neutral party. If the passage favours Jeff, reword it to simply reflect Jeff's accusation that these bodies are involved in the scandal, as opposed to suggesting he is on the right of things. - Two hundred percent 02:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Mr Two hundred percent, why you simply remove Benson's nutral report copy from blog, which shows the facts in his citation? You are contradicting your own comment above. Answer this. Kristy 18 Jul 2007.
Please read WP:FORUM. The article space itself is not to be used as a forum, and the initial purpose of hiding the comment is because it was perceived to be an editor's note. Since the note eventually sparked a discussion in the form of hidden comments in the article, normally these should be moved into this talk page. You may find the history page useful for tracking user edits and their justifications (if any).

Secondly, read my comments timestamped 03:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC). I am not defending the reliability of Jeff Ooi's arguments. So all this explanation on proof of some company doing whatever is irrelevant to the problem in hand.

Thirdly, mind explaining why this unrelated link was put in here? - Two hundred percent 16:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Let us focus on giving guidance on proper Wikipedia editing. Let her focus on finding neutrality and verifiability by rephrase her sentences. She may be new and not well trained to emphasis her point to show the citation of "gain mainstream media attention" is in her opinion too small a newspaper to be mainstream media. Her method may be not up to the standard here. The point is, we don't pick on her not well trained method but focus on guiding the proper phrases. Edit the phrases to real neutrality, not removing her phrases picking her with Wikipedia tools. That is what I would see it. BiotechMaxxim 19 Jul 2007
Thanks for the intervention. I was rather hot headed at the time and given the lack of time to deal with this, it was really hard to move along. And if it offends you, Kristy, I'm sorry. Let's focus on the task in hand and resolve this issue smoothly. - Two hundred percent 16:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Make it general please

I've deleted specific issues raised by his blog. We should try to make it general and not list down every issue that he raised. If we want to do that, might as well just go to his blog. __earth (Talk) 03:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)