[WikiEN-l] Eliezer is not a suitable administrator

[david weiss]

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 at 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:
>
>> 1. 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.

-- 
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/