fred,
my screen name is KnessetP.R.Guy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:05:20 -0700 From: Fred Bauder Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Eliezer is not a suitable administrator To: English Wikipedia Cc: Fred Bauder Message-ID: 5B24E546-2E9E-4507-B724-E95D01340D41@ctelco.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Again what is your user name?
Fred
On Jan 27, 2006, at 4:02 AM, david weiss wrote:
sorry i accidently sent more than one message. it wasn't clear to me that my first message got through. now i know better how to use this tool (i think).
in response to your e-mail, you gave one of six incidents i observed
this
past week where Eliezer silenced a dissenting voice. most of them involved different users. let me focus upon my own problem with Eliezer. he currently has me under a 24-hour block because he claims i violated the 3rr rule (though the 3rr rule permits me to revert
vandalism
by OpenInfo. e.g. "he claims to be from the knesset" "opinion of ONE israeli", etc. instead of permitting me to entitle my own comments "reason for alert" and the like) if i violated the 3rr rule, then so
did
OpenInfo and the 3rr rule specifies Eliezer must apply the rule fairly
to
all offending parties. Eliezer deleted my tags, blocked me without warning and did not block OpenInfo. what's the difference between OpenInfo and me? OpenInfo shares Eliezer's anti-messianic agenda and admits on the talk page that he supports outreach judaism - an anti-messianic group. i expressed the mainstream voice of judaism that is pluralistic.
on this same note, i tagged the alert and went to the talk page to explain the reason for my tag. as i was typing part 2 of my reason, Eliezer blocked me. my full explanation never saw the light of day. the partial explanation i managed to get onto the talk page was ignored by Eliezer and criticized by OpenInfo. this certainly does not represent the voice of the community who watches this article.
(please note: i never stated that i personally sibscribe to any of the above-mentioned views. Eliezer and OpenInfo ASSUME i'm expressing my
own
religious views. while i have my own religious convictions this forum
is
not the appropriate place since all of us are supposedly neutral.)
finally, your question about the messianic jews executed during the spanish inquisions is a valid question (though i never got the chance
to
address that issue either in the article or on the talk page.) the inquisions exclusively tagerted jews who were in the church - i.e. jews who confessed belief in Jesus. while the majority of jews in spain at that time refused to join the church or confess belief in Jesus, the spaniards focused exclusively on jews within the church. they rounded
up
1500, killed 500 who refused to renounce their jewish identity while believing in Jesus and released 1,000 under a death threat who agreed
to
renounce their jewish identity while believing in Jesus (at least publicly). did the term "messianic jew" exist at the time? no. by PROPER definition, were their religious beliefs and practices
consistant
with messianic judaism or hebrew christianity? they certainly weren't behaving like orthodox jews (though they could have). if we apply a consistant and fair logic, then the article inaccurately asserts messianic judaism "began" in the 1860's and came from the church of england. the term "messianic jew" didn't exist at that time, either. we'd have to say messianic judaism started in the 1970's when the movement adopted the name and was clearly in full swing for a long
time.
if we more appropriately analyze the CHARACTERISTICS of messianic judaism, then we find this unique religious expression has existed
2,000
(which predates christianity by over 300 years). we further discover messianic judaism has always existed over the past 2,000 years -
whether
in large or small numbers.
give unbiased third parties who have done over 10 years research into messianic judaism a voice in this article and i believe the end result will be an article that preserves the intrigrity of wikipedia and does not serve the radical agenda of Eliezer and OpenInfo.
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:32:05 +0100 From: MacGyverMagic/Mgm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Eliezer is not a suitable administrator To: English Wikipedia Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sending one message to the list is quite enough. If you are talking about reversions like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Messianic_Judaism&diff=36540336&oldid=36537686 then Eliezer was quite right to make them. Articles are about facts, and questioning the validity of any of them, should happen on the talk page.
Where and when did you post those concerns on the talk page? Just tagging is not enough. I've seen several people tag the article as totally disputed without putting any discussion on the talk page.
It would help a lot of you posted diff links to the edits you are referring to see WP:DIFF.
About the first editorial comment. If the article says Messianic Judaism started in the 1800s, then are you sure Judaism was actually called Messianic in the 1490s? Jews may have died during Crusades or at the hands of Queen Isabelle, but they may simply be a completely different form of Judaism altogether.
Mgm
On 1/26/06, david weiss wrote:
eliezer imposes an unfair, seriously biased and inaccurate article dealing with messianic judaism. when i had previously raised my
concerns
in the discussion page and point out the gross misinformation in
the main
article, eliezar would delete my tag. (as a side note, i observed
others
tag this article as violating the npov policy only to have their
tags
deleted without explanation.)
i expressed my concerns on the talk page, only to be vandalised by OpenInfo and blocked by Eliezer. Eliezer prevented me from
explaining:
- where the npov policy was violated in several places; 2. show
where
the facts were seriously inaccurate and, 3. show where the author contradicted himself. eliezer blocked me without sufficient warning
per
the blocking policy.
while i strongly disagree with eliezer's anti-messianic agenda, i
do not
feel i vandalized the article or site in any way. this site's
policy
allows me the freedom to edit articles that violate the npov in a
good
faith effort to make them more accurate.
i believe eliezer will only force his anti-messianic agenda upon
the
public and a new administrator needs to be appointed who will
fairly
address the topic. thank you for your prompt and open-minded
attention
to this matter.