We have a user here who was exposed to be a Christian missionary. See here and here
The user has contributed quite a lot to this site, see here.
What should we do with his posts?
-
8While I'm far from a fan of missionaries, I don't quite understand how his membership would be different from that of non-Jews who post here (both questions and answers!). Perhaps someone could enlighten me? Is there a fear he may be able to contact other members off-site and proselytize? Something else?– Harel13Commented Apr 28, 2021 at 5:18
-
Possible duplicate: Old posts that cite a since-disgraced rabbi– Double AA ModCommented Apr 29, 2021 at 0:47
-
5@DoubleAA I agree that that's related, but I don't think this is a duplicate, as the disposition of a user account brings up different issues than the treatment of content cited here from external sources.– Isaac Moses ModCommented Apr 29, 2021 at 19:59
-
2Are we now in the business of doxxing users? media.giphy.com/media/8cqVIPHCKLhfO/giphy.gif– RichardCommented May 2, 2021 at 12:12
-
7@Richard he was exposed not by "we" (whoever that is) but in widely reported media stories; and he used the same name on Mi Yodeya as in real life. So this is no secret that the OP here on Meta has exposed.– msh210 ModCommented May 2, 2021 at 12:21
-
6Does the Code of Conduct apply to off-site interactions?.– RichardCommented May 2, 2021 at 12:33
Add a comment
|
5 Answers
In general, we recommend evaluating each post based on its content, not based on whatever the reader knows or assumes about the identity of the author.
I would suggest that this case is generally no different. If there are high-quality posts associated with this user, they should be treated as high-quality. Low-quality posts should be treated as low-quality.
If any posts violate our anti-spam rules requiring that users disclose their affiliation if their posts promote a product that they're associated with, those posts should be flagged and dealt with as such.
answered Apr 26, 2021 at 18:31
-
8
-
4
-
1
-
It seems most of his answers are older. And it doesn't seem like anyone was led astray into Christianity by them. So I support the idea of leaving the posts as is and letting the votes separate the wheat from the chaff– AaronCommented Feb 28, 2022 at 23:30
Although it is true that readers should be wary and evaluate others' content, anything known to have been posted by a missionary is so suspect as to bear deletion. (Naturally, I will not, in my role as moderator, enforce this view unless the community accepts it.)
-
6I fully agree. While we don't have to go out of our way to police people, if it is brought to our attention, we should act appropriately. In this case, we know it was likely posted with a deliberate attempt to mislead.– N.T.Commented Apr 28, 2021 at 19:11
I do not think we should provide this fellow a further platform for his deliberate deception: his profile picture (which currently looks like a religious Jew, complete with tefillin) should be removed, his username ("Rabbi Michael Tzadok") changed to "spreading the good news of Jesus" or some such, and his "about me" removed also — or changed to something honest.
-
9I don't think it's a good idea for this site to put itself in the role of vetting users' claims about themselves. Especially since in this case I don't see any deception by his account beyond belonging to a person with a deliberately deceptive lifestyle. Treating him differently falsely implies everyone else is telling the truth about themselves. There are other users on this site who I think are Christians posing as Jews; are they better than him just because they didn't choose to use their real name and get publicly exposed? Anyone who wants to search his present username will find out more– b aCommented Apr 27, 2021 at 9:20
-
8@ba I think if any user of good standing complained plausibly about another user's picture or username, we'd be willing to revert it to the default "user1234" and default image, at least until the user in question had a chance to respond. Having a custom profile is a bit of a privilege and the bar for removing it as offensive isn't so high.– Double AA ModCommented Apr 27, 2021 at 13:09
-
1
-
3
-
@ba If you have a reason for adopting a stricter standard than I proposed, which perforce will leave more offensive material around longer and create more headaches for the mod team, please explain why the cost of having someone lose their custom profile info temporarily is so great as to be worth that.– Double AA ModCommented Apr 27, 2021 at 15:22
-
-
1@msh210 The discussion is about taking action against a user before they can respond. Once the offender and the offendee have both presented their cases, then potentially a permanent decision can be rendered.– Double AA ModCommented Apr 27, 2021 at 15:29
-
1@ba btw here judaism.stackexchange.com/q/36135/759 and in linked questions we have a lot of indications that many Jews find non-Jews publicly wearing Jewish symbols to be offensive, at least in certain contexts, and images of that would probably also be offensive to them. (Personally, I don't think I'd find it that offensive, certainly not enough to complain about it here in a profile. But that's just me.)– Double AA ModCommented Apr 27, 2021 at 15:37
-
3@msh210 there are two issues, to behave "as if" he is jew, from the Arizal family etc, and to be a christian missionary. The first problem is not a problem, maybe a lot of rabbis in MY are not jews and it is not a problem in an exclusively internet group. But the link with mission may be harmful. Perhaps some contents are hidden christian messages. At the first glance it's not the case.– koutyCommented Apr 27, 2021 at 23:19
-
I'll point out that Messianic Jews are a thing that exist, even if most Jews don't think that they're really Jews. Are you sure he's being deceptive? Commented May 7, 2021 at 2:02
-
1
-
@msh210 Yeah, I looked at them afterwards, and there's clearly some deception involved (e.g. "my grandma was a Holocaust victim" when she wasn't, or the lies on their immigration forms since Messianic Jews aren't allowed to use the Right of Return to immigrate) but I'm not sure that their religion was entirely fake, if they were genuine converts to Messianic Judaism. Commented May 7, 2021 at 7:30
I don't think we should do anything. As far as I can tell, the user has not violated any site rules by posting, or by giving the impression of being a rabbi. Anyone is allowed to post here as long as they follow the rules, even if they are not a rabbi, or even if they are not Jewish.
Moreover, it is not our job to police content based on the identity or worldview of users. Any content that is posted is subject to the same system of peer review as anyone else's content. I see it as a dangerous slippery slope to police content in this manner. It is not such a big leap from deleting content because it was posted by a Christian missionary to deleting content because it was posted by someone from a different branch of Judaism, or someone with a "wrong hashkafa" or from a "bad yeshiva". And it would only be downhill from there.
-
5Is it that much smaller of a leap than the current policy which marks messianic judaism questions as off topic?– Double AA ModCommented Apr 28, 2021 at 3:10
-
5
It is not such a big leap from deleting content because it was posted by a Christian missionary to deleting content because it was posted by someone from a different branch of Judaism, or someone with a "wrong hashkafa" or from a "bad yeshiva".A great chiddush for me, my first understanding is that mission out of the spectrum– koutyCommented Apr 28, 2021 at 18:09 -
@DoubleAA I’m not so familiar with that discussion. Is there a relevant Meta you can link to? In any case, I would think that there would be a difference between saying that certain content is off-topic and saying that certain users are off-topic.– AlexCommented Apr 28, 2021 at 19:36
-
1@Alex There certainly is a big difference between banning content as not jewish and banning users as not jewish, but the potential slippery slope of "what is considered jewish" is seemingly the same in both.– Double AA ModCommented Apr 28, 2021 at 19:41
-
3@DoubleAA I think the difference would be that with content you can deal with tangible parameters. For instance, a recent Meta post about Apocrypha — you can say that it is on topic or off topic, and the community can vote. Maybe it’s unclear what constitutes Apocrypha? Then you can formulate a list of potential candidates which can be voted on as well. If, however, you say that a group identity is barred, I think it would be much harder (in many cases) to clearly define the identity, what is problematic about it, and how to prove someone belongs. Content just seems like a much better metric.– AlexCommented Apr 28, 2021 at 22:30
-
2Though slippery slope might not have been the best term to describe this.– AlexCommented Apr 28, 2021 at 22:30
If you want to leave his answers and questions on because it is the job of the reader to look up the sources and not rely on the post itself ,I can hear. However , to leave his info about himself proclaiming to be a Rabbi and religious Jew is out right irresponsible. If anything his info should have an additional clause stating that upon recent news this person has been found to be a fraud and a link to the many articles provided.
