Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Sphilbrick (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: NativeForeigner (Talk)

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Request that John Carter be banned from case

1) Based on his inappropriate conduct here [1] and his refusal to "shut it down", even when told to do so by an arbitrator [2], I'm requesting that John Carter be banned from this arbitration, and that he at least temporarily be banned from interacting with me. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Considering that the decision is already several days past due, and this is to my eyes simply a continuation of the more than somewhat questionable overreactions to even reasonable criticism which has I believe been displayed by this editor since even before the arbitration was requested, I honestly cannot see any substantive reason, other than melodramatic overreaction, for this request, other than the fact that other editors have made recent comments to this editor on his talk page which I think could reasonably be seen as attempts to add fuel to the fires of that tendency toward paranoia. I was specifically named as a party by this individual from the word go. This is to my eyes simply a continuation of the absurdly self-dramatizing, sometimes hysterical, overreactions of someone who has displayed such characteristics for some time now. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I disagree. Some important information is coming out of the continuing discussion and I think we should let it ride. Ignocrates (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Robert McClenon

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Battleground conduct

2) Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Recidivism

3) Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of case

1) The primary locus of this case is Historicity of Jesus. The more general locus of this case is articles concerning the early history of Christianity, defined as the first century CE.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Edit Warring, Disruptive Editing, and History of Disputes

2) Articles concerning the early history of Christianity have a history of edit warring, disruptive editing, and battleground editing. There have been two arbitration cases involving Ebionites. A moderated dispute resolution effort at Gospel of Matthew was closed without success.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Links to the three cases being referenced are as follows: Ebionites 1, Ebionites 3, and Gospel of Matthew. Without commenting on the merits (I was involved in all three), I note by way of background that the Ebionites 1 dispute happened 7 years ago, Ebionites 3 was a two-person dispute, and Gospel of Matthew was a content dispute at DRN that was resolved shortly afterward on the article talk page. Ignocrates (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal

1) User:Fearofreprisal has engaged in disruptive editing, battleground editing, accusations of bad faith editing, and tendentious editing on the article Historicity of Jesus, and has engaged in conduct that appears to be intended to maximize existing conflict.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Are you planning to provide any evidence for these charges? Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It has been over 30 days, and Robert McClenon has provided no evidence. Given the seriousness of his allegations, this is very concerning. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I assume there's more to come. Allegations of this nature without diffs to support them are little more than personal attacks. Ignocrates (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Iseeewe

2) User:IseeEwe has engaged in personal attacks and accusations of bad faith editing on the article Historicity of Jesus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Iseeewe isn't a party to this arbitration. It seems rather poor form to mention him here, especially as it seems you haven't notified him on his talk page. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree. You should consider requesting that IseeEwe be added as an involved party. Ignocrates (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Discretionary sanctions

The topic of the historicity of Jesus, broadly construed, is placed under standard discretionary sanctions.

Articles within the scope of this sanction explicitly include Historicity of Jesus, Historical Jesus, and Christ myth theory. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In general, the phrase "broadly construed" relates to additional articles which have some significant relationship to the main topic, which in this case would presumably included individual books discussing the historicity of Jesus and other articles where the historicity of Jesus or lack of same is given some significant attention. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Expansion of discretionary sanctions

2) In the event of disruption of any article or topic area concerning the history of Christianity in the first century CE, the Arbitration Committee may, by motion, without a full case hearing, subject the topic area to standard discretionary sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would suggest making this less specific and ammending to the previous remedy. Something simple like "if these same issues should move to tother related areas any editor may request an expansion of the sanctions via WP:ARCA. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

A good idea in general, but I think limiting it specifically to just the first century CE, or roughly the Apostolic Age, might be perhaps too limiting. I might suggest expanding it to Early Christianity or perhaps more particularly to include all aspects of Christianity up to the time that the available sources are considered sufficient to allow us to produce a reasonably complete and coherent article on any given topic. There are a lot of questions in academia, unfortunately, about whether certain documents and movements existed in the first century in a form recognizable to us today, and I think it would be to our advantage to be able to include some of those topics of perhaps dubious first century status in the range of possible discretionary sanctions. John Carter (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There is insufficient evidence presented in this case of systemic misconduct beyond this article. I may change my position if new evidence shows why discretionary sanctions are a better remedy than normal sanctions. Opinions abound; let's see the diffs. Ignocrates (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal

3) The community topic-ban of User:Fearofreprisal from the historicity of Jesus is affirmed and is converted to an Arbitration Committee ban. This ban may be appealed to the BASC in not less than twelve months, and thereafter once every twelve months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Just pointing out that any sanction imposed by the full committee must be appealed to the full committee, not BASC. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I support this change. There are too many complexities to this dispute to leave it as a community ban. Ignocrates (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, if the community is more comfortable with this option. Granted, in my opinion, it really doesn't matter who bears the onus of an appeal. A topic ban is a topic ban is a topic ban, and neither ArbCom nor the BASC are going to be lifting it any time soon. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

3.1) For continuing to use this arbitration proceeding disruptively, as a troll, User:Fearofreprisal is banned from the English Wikipedia for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

When you sift through all the noise, here's what you find:

• First, Robert McClenon got me topic banned, because I filed an RfM he considered frivolous.[3]
• Next, he tried to have me permanently site banned as a "vexatious litigant" because I used ANI to request an IBAN with another editor.[4]
• Now, he wants to have me site banned (or declared a "vexatious litigant") because he thinks I'm acting disruptively in this Arbitration.

What's wrong with this picture? Why is Robert McClenon so focused on trying to have me sanctioned for using WP's dispute resolution processes? Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

ArbCom has long since ceased issuing bans of fixed duration because they felt it was a means of kicking the situation further down the road, rather than preventing a problematic contributor from editing until such time that they can demonstrate a willingness to improve on their behavior. ArbCom would likely be more inclined to consider an indefinite site-ban with the option of appealing it in six months time. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

3.1.1) Since User:Fearofreprisal is known to be a legitimate alternate account, the primary account used by this editor should also be blocked as an ArbCom block in order to preserve the approved secrecy of the association between accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't think this warrants a separate header; it's common practice to block every account known to be operated by a indefinitely blocked or banned user. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

3.2) Alternative to 3.1: User:Fearofreprisal is declared to be a vexatious litigant, and is banned from all filings to noticeboards, with the sole exception of being allowed to defend himself or herself. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm assuming this is to include such similar processes as Third opinion, Mediation, and Arbitration? John Carter (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That is my intent. Perhaps that should have been specified clearly. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Denying an editor access to dispute resolution? Do you really want to open that pandora's box? Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Although the initial filing of this case was a means for Fearofreprisal to vent his frustrations, I'm not sure if I feel comfortable barring him from posting at AN, ANI, AN3, etc. In my opinion, the best solution to this problem is already in effect: a topic ban from anything pertaining to the historicity of Jesus, broadly construed. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Fearofreprisal

Proposed principles

Conduct during arbitration cases

1) Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehavior must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behavior during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand. Passed 9 to 0, with 2 abstentions, at 19:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC) [5]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Consistent Standards

2) All Wikipedia editors, regardless of the length of their service or any positions they may hold, are expected to abide by at least our basic standards for user conduct. Experienced administrators are expected to adhere, at a minimum, to at least the same standards of behavior that they are responsible for enforcing. In the same vein, editors who see part of their role here as making constructive criticism of other users must strive to live up to the same standards to which they would hold others. Double standards, actual or perceived, can be seriously demoralizing. Passed 9 to 0 at 00:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC) [6]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standards of editor behavior

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Additionally, editors should presume that other editors, including those who disagree with them, are acting in good faith toward the betterment of the project, at least until strong evidence emerges to the contrary. Even when an editor becomes convinced that another editor is not acting in good faith, and has a reasonable basis for that belief, the editor should attempt to remedy the problem without resorting to inappropriate conduct of his or her own. Passed 8 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC) [7]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Battleground conduct

4) Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus on substantive content issues. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground. Passed 10 to 0 at 19:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC) [8]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Making allegations against other editors

5) An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all. A claim of misconduct should be raised directly with the other user himself or herself in the first instance, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing such conduct, and should not generally be spread across multiple forums. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation. Passed 9 to 0 at 23:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC) [9]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Casting aspersions

6) An editor should not make accusations, such as that another editor or a group of editors is biased or habitually violates site policies or norms, unless the accusations are supported by evidence. A persistent pattern of making false or unsupported accusations is particularly damaging to the collaborative editing environment, as is repeating accusations that have been shown to be incorrect. Passed 15 to 0 at 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC) [10]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dispute Resolution

7) Dispute resolution is not a weapon to be used in order to exhaust an editor's willingness or capacity to contribute. Frivolous reporting, raising the same issue despite it being dismissed repeatedly, forum shopping, and escalation disproportionate to the alleged misconduct are all abuses of the system that are disruptive in themselves and detrimental to the collegiate atmosphere required for building an encyclopedia. Passed 9 to 1 with 2 abstentions, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC) [11]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Inappropriate canvassing

8) Contacting a broad range of editors, such as through RfC, is an important step in dispute resolution. However, biased canvassing, on- or off-wiki, distorts the consensus process and is disruptive. Signs of biased canvassing include urging new editors to take a specific position in a conflict and only contacting one side of a dispute. To protect against rigged decisions, editors participating due to questionable canvassing may be discounted when evaluating consensus. Single-purpose accounts created for this purpose may be treated as "meatpuppets". Passed 13 to 0 with 1 abstention at 03:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC) [12]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Peremptory reversion or removal of sourced material

9) Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational. Passed 7 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC) [13]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Collective behavior of blocs of editors

10) It is potentially harmful to Wikipedia when editorial debates become strongly associated with real-world polarizations and when they become dominated by groups of editors lined up along philosophical lines due to shared beliefs or personal backgrounds. This is particularly harmful when such editors act in concert to systematically advocate editorial decisions considered favorable to their shared views in a manner that contravenes the application of Wikipedia policy or obstructs consensus-building. Defending editorial positions that support philosophical preferences typical of a particular group is not ipso facto evidence of bad-faith editing. At the same time, mere strength of numbers is not sufficient to contravene Wikipedia policy, and an apparent consensus of editors is not sufficient to overrule the five pillars of Wikipedia. Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention, 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC) [14]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Levels of consensus

11) Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. Local consensus cannot override site policy. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account. Passed 13 to 0 at 20:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [15]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Review of community sanctions

12) As stated in §1.1 of the arbitration policy, the Arbitration Committee is responsible for "hear[ing] appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users", including users subject to sanctions imposed by the community. In certain circumstances, the Committee may overturn or reduce a sanction imposed by the community. Such circumstances include, but are not limited to, cases where (1) some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, (2) the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad, (3) circumstances have changed significantly since the community sanction was imposed, or (4) non-public information that should not be addressed on-wiki, such as personal information or checkuser data, is relevant to the decision. Passed 15 to 0, with 1 abstention 01:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC) [16]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Advocacy

13) Wikipedia is not for advocacy. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state neutrally the current knowledge in a field, not to put forward arguments to promote or deride any particular view. In particular, conjectures that hold significant prominence must no more be suppressed than be promoted as factual. Passed 8 to 0 on 22:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC) [17]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Guiding the community in protracted disputes

14) The occurrence of protracted, apparently insoluble disputes—whether they involve conduct, content, or policy—is contrary to the purposes of the project and damaging to its health. The chief purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to protect the project from the disruption caused by such disputes, and it has the authority to issue binding resolutions in keeping with that purpose. The Committee has traditionally concentrated its attention on conduct disputes, and has avoided issuing binding rulings that would directly resolve matters of content or policy, leaving those questions to the community at large. However, in cases where the community has proven unable to resolve those questions using the methods normally available to it, and where the lack of resolution results in unacceptable disruption to the project, the Committee may impose an exceptional method for reaching a decision. Passed 8 to 0, 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC) [18]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Vandalism

15) Policy defines Vandalism as... " any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". It further states: "Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated". Editors who facilitate vandalism may be sanctioned even if they do not directly engage in acts of vandalism. Passed 11 to 0, 21:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC) [19]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

These principles are all well and good, but I don't see how they tie to specific findings of fact supported by evidence. I assume that is going to happen this week. Ignocrates (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Have been waiting for the evidence page to stabilize. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Controversial topic

1) The Historicity of Jesus article concerns a controversial topic, where editorial debates have long been associated with real-world polarizations, and dominated by a group of experienced editors lined-up along philosophical lines due to shared beliefs. The article has been subject to protracted, apparently insoluble disputes, with the dominant editors advocating for their point of view, and deriding other points of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Of course, for balance and accuracy, we should also mention that the "dominant editors" are consistently quoting the reliable sources, rather than just a personal POV. Wdford (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Members of the dominant editing block generally (but not consistently) use reliable sources, but those sources are all too often misquoted, taken out of context, cherrypicked, or otherwise fail verification. For example, the first two citations in the current version of the article [20] fail verification. Though it may be hard to show diffs, most serious alternative-viewpoint editors (ignoring trolls and vandals) also quote reliable sources. As for me: a review of my edits would show extensive citations to reliable sources - many times to the full contextual quotations of sources that had been cherrypicked by the dominant editors. Of course, you have to take that for what it's worth, given that no one in this Arbitration has even bothered to try to impeach my contributions to the article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

If you take a look at [21], you see four people of very different religious and philosophical backgrounds (a liberal Christian, an atheist, a Jewish woman and a traditionally-minded Christian who questions the impact of the Age of Enlightenment upon Bible scholarship). Therefore I reject the label shared beliefs, since I have pointed out at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity_of_Jesus#Statement by Tgeorgescu we do not render an ideology, we render an academic discipline (or sub-discipline), namely history of the Bible and of the Ancient Levant. In this academic field there is agreement upon the methods and way of asking questions, but it is not required that scholars adhere to a certain ideology or philosophy. Of course for somebody who is ignorant of this study field, we appear as a block of editors having an agenda; in fact we only render what is consensually accepted among mainstream scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I clearly acknowledge that there does exist some "controversy" here, but I believe the quote from Ehrman in this post indicates that perhaps the controversy is primarily one-sided, with one group of individuals seeking to promote a point of, well, belief, regarding a topic important to them, possibly at the expense of some academic credibility. John Carter (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The only shared belief I'm speaking of is a belief that Jesus existed. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Then that should be clarified in the text. John Carter (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Mere existence only touches beliefs, shared or disputed, at one point, and is not the sum of the topic of the article. The editing community does seem, however, quite united that all aspects of those beliefs and their implications are within the article's scope, and object to artificial restrictions on what belongs there. Perhaps that is the shared belief that is more fundamental to some editing disputes. Evensteven (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought that it was already clear that we don't edit Wikipedia in order to vent our own beliefs, but in order to summarize scholarship and science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think Evensteven might have been trying to say (and I hope he corrects me if I'm wrong) that the beliefs of those involved in the relevant scholarship and science, if those beliefs are themselves discussed to a significant enough degree in the scholarship and science to meet WEIGHT considerations, are worth perhaps being discussed in the article to some degree. John Carter (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Attempt to clarify: Existence is only one element to beliefs about Jesus' historicity, and the extent of those beliefs is not all held in common, even among Christians; "not shared" - at least not completely. Fearofreprisal has argued that there is a block of editors with shared (Christian) beliefs that prevent his editing, and has mentioned no other type of opposition. Yet he spent considerable time on the talk page arguing about the definition of historicity, claiming that statements in the article did not fall within his interpretation of that definition. I was saying that the editing community seemed to share the belief that the article was not out of the bounds of its scope, and that acceptance of the historicity definition would thus artificially restrict that scope. Fearofreprisal has long positioned the opposition to his edits as being based upon other editors' Christian beliefs, but this particular point at a minimum was about scope and WP policy, not about Christian beliefs at all. Far from approving the venting of beliefs of editors, I think the rest of the editing community was largely unified in the belief that the material available in the sources was fit for consideration in the article, and is not subject to artificial restrictions or definitions not employed by the sources themselves. If this sounds like an artificial controversy, then that is a part of why we are here. Evensteven (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Basically, it seems to me to be the case that the scope of our article could reasonably reflect the scope of similarly titled articles and child articles in other reference sources as per WP:COMMONNAME. So far as I can tell, those other sources do not necessarily regularly restrict the scope of their material by this title to the question of the historical existence of Jesus, and, except in cases where the content of those other sources is so lengthy that it has to be broken up into multiple articles here, there is no particular reason we should either. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I tried to make the case in Talk:Historicity of Jesus that the article's WP:SCOPE should be it's topic, as described by it's WP:TITLE. This is consistent with WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:PRECISION, and is also inline with the recommendation of Wikipedia:Controversial_articles#Be_precise. I reiterated this suggestion as a proposed remedy in this arbitration [22]. The discussion of what content fits within that scope (e.g., existence of Jesus) is probably not a matter for this arbitration, and can be appropriately dealt with in the article talk page. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course, Wdford, we could also point out that the parties named have steadfastly and stubbornly refused to acknowledge the inherent bias in the sources they use. That's the issue here: not that the sources are unreliable, but that they are biased, in much the same way that a Ford dealer may be a perfectly valid source about the technology used in Ford vehicles, but must have his statements relative to their merits carefully reviewed in the context of whether he is consciously or unconsciously advocating Ford's point of view. No problem with inclusion of the material, but the refusal to acknowledge the bias is a problem.—Kww(talk) 20:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with Kww on the basis of this point - when a respected author states that Jesus' existence is as certain as anything historical could be, it's hard to take them seriously. However, these sentiments are shared by a large variety of respected authors, most of whom overwhelmingly discredit the bulk of the gospel stories, but who nonetheless affirm that Jesus did exist. These disparate authors are the reliable sources on the topic, so we need to summarize their consensus position accordingly. There are very few who disagree, and their position is noted also, but with reduced weight. However, before we can state that reliable sources are biased, we need reliable sources for that statement. Bear in mind that some of these sources are still alive. Wdford (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

No, we do not. Identification of bias is an editorial decision, and we no more need a reliable source to indicate that Christians possess a bias favouring the existence of Jesus of Nazareth than we do indicating that Ford dealers possess a bias favouring the sale of Ford products. This constant "we need reliable sources to indicate the existence of bias" is nonsense: it doesn't come up anywhere else, and noting the existence of a bias isn't a WP:BLP violation, either: we all have biases, and dispassionately identifying them isn't an issue.—Kww(talk) 13:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that these comments contain the nature of the disagreements at the talk page, and that it's not ArbCom's job to decide a matter of article scope. My point in bringing it up here is that not all the controversy is due to the nature of the topic, as Fearofreprisal proposes here, but that there are controversies over policy and interpretation of WP guidelines that have more to do with whether editors share Christian beliefs or not. Scope (and interpretation of what "historicity" implies for the article) are simply a case in point. For myself, this was why I entered the fray in the first place. I welcome Kww's presence here to represent his view again also. I think Ignocrates is correct in identifying assumptions and underlying motives as having their hands all over the dispute. And that is precisely what ArbCom needs to look at here in rendering its findings and decisions. Evensteven (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it is within ArbCom's authority to clarify issues of WP policy and guidelines regarding article scope. My viewpoint is that an article with the rather precise title "Historicity of Jesus" should actually be about the historicity of Jesus, and should focus on content that can be cited as being within that scope. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom can also decide where its authority extends in this matter. I agree with your statement regarding scope. How is it then that we disagree as to its application? There is still dispute buried beneath the statement, and such statements are not enough to resolve it. Most of the editors do not regard the title as being as "precise" as you do. Evensteven (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm confused by Evensteven's statement "Mere existence only touches beliefs,...". In what way is the editing community "quite united" and what are the "artificial restrictions" on the article's scope? Please explain what these points have to do with why we are here. Ignocrates (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven, it's much clearer now. Thank you. Looking back, it seems to me that the content dispute really escalated over this point - a somewhat idiosyncratic definition of the term "historicity" - and was greatly aggravated by assumptions, perhaps mistaken, about underlying motives on all sides of the dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ignocrates, you are a party to this arbitration. Why do you put your comments in the "comment by others" sections? Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I consider myself to be uninvolved in the dispute. That's one reason why I'm staying away from speculating about people's motives and making arguments based on observable evidence. I'm sure if the arbs want to "involve" me they won't hesitate to let me know. Ignocrates (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not in fact see Ignocrates' name mentioned in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus#Involved parties section, therefore, according to the terms of arbitration, he is not an involved party and as such his comments are appropriately included in the comments by others section. If he were in fact listed as a party, I am sure the clerks would have moved his comments to the appropriate section and advised him to place his comments there. John Carter (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism of article

2) Wdford and Robert McClenon peremptorily and deliberately removed a large portion of the content of the Historicity of Jesus article, against community consensus, and in a manner that compromised the integrity of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The slanders continue to flow. The edit in question did not compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, it was a good-faith edit which retained the important content, but summarized it and referred readers to the various existing main articles for the detail. This edit was very much supported by the overwhelming majority of the community that were working on the article at that time, as my Evidence clearly shows. Lastly, at the time Fearofreprisal opened a vandalism case against me at WP:AIAV, and it was rejected immediately as not being a case of vandalism.[23] Why then does Fearofreprisal continue to repeat this allegation of vandalism? Wdford (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to your claim here, your edit intentionally removed all but two sentences of the article's encyclopedic content - neither of which even mentioned the article's topic. You also intentionally removed the POV template, navigation template (sidebar), table of contents, “See also” section, “Notes” section, images, footers, and categories. (Removal of this material alone was sufficient to constitute vandalism.) The only thing you added was a list of other possibly relevant articles, with descriptions. Your edit might have been a hit among the article's dominant editing bloc, but it was a disaster among a larger community of editors (leading to massive disruption), and it was in complete contravention to global consensus ("site policy.") Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to your slanderous accusations, the definition of Vandalism at WP:VAN reads "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." (Italics added.) I was not intending to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, and nor in fact did I compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, therefore my edit was not vandalism. This was quickly confirmed at WP:AIAV, as you well know. Nonetheless, your accusations continue. What was left after my edit was enough information to answer the core question of "Did Jesus really exist", without any of the duplicated detail, but with lots of links to other articles where the deleted detail already stood, and lots of references. My edit was BOLD but it was not disruptive, in that almost all the editors who were actually working on the article agreed with it. It was only after "somebody" started canvassing that the atheist brigade arrived and disrupted the article with a stream of SPA's and other meat-puppetry. I don't believe I should be held accountable for the illegal actions of others - surely they and their canvasser should be held accountable in their own right? Wdford (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Deliberately attempting to compromise the integrity of a Wikipedia article is deliberately attempting to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. And the evidence shows that you deliberately attempted to compromise the integrity of the Historicity of Jesus article. As for whether the question of "did Jesus really exist" is core to the topic of the historicity of Jesus: you'd need to provide a citation to support that claim. In your edited version of the article, you provided no such citation. So, the question was inapposite. Your edit was disruptive like a hand grenade. It just took a few days to go off. In any event, the arbitrators can review the RfC, and determine which comments made the best case of whether the edit was disruptive or not. Most of the editors who agreed with your edit just "voted," and didn't actually bother to make a case supporting it. (WP is not a democracy.) But it matters not: Local consensus still doesn't outweigh global consensus (site policy), and your edit violated site policy in multiple ways. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's just stop now, and leave it to the arbitrators to figure this out. 19:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Allegations of misconduct

3) Editors Robert McClenon, Hijiri88, Ian.Thomson, and Jeppiz made allegations of misconduct against editor Fearofreprisal, both in this arbitration and at ANI, yet provided no supporting evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In my opinion, misconduct appears on this very page in Fearofreprisal's continued allegation of vandalism against Wdford, despite the rejection of that charge at WP:AIAV. Always a serious charge, it becomes an inappropriate disruption, a disrespectful action against the charged party, and a demonstrated refusal to accept the community's decision when allegations that have already been settled are pursued beyond the means WP has for determining such matters. I think that the history of that charge can be reviewed here, but that Fearofreprisal can call for that review without reverting to making the overt charge once again, and that that would have been the appropriate action to take. It is the method actually used that constitutes misconduct. Evensteven (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

As I understand, ArbCom retains all jurisdiction over matters in this arbitration, and provides no deference to the opinion of a single administrator at WP:AIV as to what constitutes vandalism. In any event, I use the term descriptively. Whether Wdford's edit was by-the-book vandalism, or merely a peremptory removal of material, given that it was an admitted end-around run on the AfD process and an attempt to override global consensus, the result was the same: significant disruption. It's not my intention to load-the issues here with connotation, so if the drafting arbitrator (or any other arbitrator) suggests a more appropriate term to describe the incident, I'll be happy to use it. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, ArbCom will decide. I was merely pointing out that you could have chosen to call it "a peremptory removal of material" in the first place yet chose not to do so, and that the choice to call it vandalism again was an unnecessary insistence on the word. Evensteven (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You may be right. I've probably been insensitive to the negative connotations that others find in the term. When I started looking for dispute resolution in this situation, the only terms I could find that seemed to fit were "vandalism," or "impermissible blanking," so those are the terms I used. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Ignocrates: Your distinction between impermissible blanking and vandalism may be valid, but Wdford hasn't suggested that he misunderstood policy.

I haven't accused Wdford of bad faith. But, as a matter of background, he provided a diff showing that he was knowingly involved in compromising the article in the first place, and that his "bold" edit was a deliberate step towards gutting the article, rather than improving it. [24], See also [25]

WP:HERE says: "This means that a user is here primarily to help improve encyclopedia articles and content, and to provide constructive input into communal discussions and processes aimed at improving the project and the quality of our content, and do so in line with the project's intended boundaries, policies, and wider mission." I have found nothing in WP policy or guidelines to suggest that what Wdford did with his "bold" was a way to improve an article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

And sadly, the slanderous attack against me continues to continue. It is starting to look as if Fearofreprisal is basing his/her case for reinstatement on the flimsy excuse that his/her bad behavior was actually an heroic attempt to protect the encyclopedia from the ravages of a malicious vandal, who was supported by a large team of religiously-inspired editors (including a respected admin) who bore him/her a grudge.

Vandalism, as per WP:VAN, is "any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". As I have noted repeatedly, I made no attempt to compromise Wikipedia. On the contrary, I have tried for a long time to IMPROVE Wikipedia by removing duplication on overlapping articles on this and other topics. One route to solve this problem was simply to merge this article into the much-better Historical Jesus article, which it heavily duplicated then (and does again now). However some editors insisted on retaining this article. My compromise plan was then to retain the article, but to eliminate all the duplication and the unconstructive fighting over the interpretation of the topic, and to redirect the readers to the wide range of articles that already discussed the various aspects of the topic in detail. This was clearly explained in my post on the talk page, where I stated "WP:AFD recommends in these cases that we consider "Disambiguation" or "Redirection". I think that could be the solution, and have therefore attempted a BOLD edit as an example of what it could look like." [26] That was intended as a start-point for a new discussion, which is how I interpret WP:BOLD. It could have easily been undone by a simple revert, and indeed Fearofreprisal immediately reverted it. I made no effort to reinstate my edit, but an admin reinstated my edit, and then the community overwhelmingly agreed with it as evidenced on the evidence page in full. My edit then stood for a while until some canvassing brought in a wave of editors who had not previously worked on the article at all – many of them SPA’s.

Fearofreprisal launched a case against me for Vandalism at WP:AIAV. [27], and the case was refused on the grounds that my edit was not vandalism. [28] Fearofreprisal’s bad behavior eventually resulted in him/her being topic-banned, which solved the conflict but has now lead to this slander campaign against me, wherein Fearofreprisal continues to claim that I "blanked" the article in "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". As I have also described at length on the evidence page, the material I removed did not disappear from the encyclopedia – it was all already described in detail in related (and better) articles, and my summarizing of this article retained clear summaries of those main articles together with references and wikilinks. No relevant information was lost, and the encyclopedia was not compromised. [29] As this diff shows, in fact a great deal of relevant content was retained, including references.

However Fearofreprisal continues with this campaign of falsehoods, doubtless hoping that by mere repetition his/her lies will eventually be accepted. He/she has now stated above that I admitted that I "was knowingly involved in compromising the article in the first place, and that [my] "bold" edit was a deliberate step towards gutting the article, rather than improving it." It’s hard to continue to AGF in the face of such a protracted campaign of slander. I trust that the arbitrators will recognize this campaign for what it is. Wdford (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon isn't an administrator. He should be accorded no more deference here than any other editor.
• Quoting from what you wrote at [30]:

• Some of us have been using this article as a disambiguation page of sorts, summarizing the other over-lapping articles and directing readers thence for the detail. I contend that deliberately using an encyclopedic article about a distinct topic (i.e., the historicity of Jesus) as a "disambiguation page of sorts" to summarize other overlapping articles is an obvious and undeniable compromise to the integrity of that article, and, as a result, to Wikipedia.
• We then tried to make this into a full-fledged and balanced article, but we became concerned about duplicating other and better articles. It was already a full-fledged and balanced article, until you (and whoever "some of us" was) started using it as a "disambiguation page of sorts."
• Now deletion is once again being contemplated. Per WP:AFD, the main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions are: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). It seems to me that none of these apply: So, you determined that, per AfD, the article didn't meet the criteria for deletion.
• WP:AFD recommends in these cases that we consider "Disambiguation" or "Redirection". I think that could be the solution, and have therefore attempted a BOLD edit as an example of what it could look like." AFD does not say this. What it says is "If you think the article should be a disambiguation page, or a redirect to another article, then recommend 'Disambiguation' or 'Redirect'." Either of these options still require you to go through the AFD nomination and deletion discussion process. Yet, you ignored deletion policy, and made a major and reckless edit, tantamount to turning the article into a "disambiguation page of sorts"
• What you called a "disambiguation article" had no disambiguation, no definition (or even description) of the topic, a mere two sentences of encyclopedic content (of tenuous relationship to the topic), and mostly a collection of summaries from a mixed bag of other articles you apparently chose off the top of your head (only one of which actually mentioned the topic.)
• While you say that you were trying to "IMPROVE Wikipedia by removing duplication on overlapping articles," nearly all the content of your "disambiguation article" was duplicated from other articles. Take away all the duplicated content, and there was one sentence left -- and it wasn't even about the topic.
• And, while you say that the material you removed from the article did not disappear from the encyclopedia, it was spread out among an indeterminate number of other articles, most of which discussed the topic only peripherally, and none comprehensively.
• For all practical purposes, your "bold edit" wiped away the substance of article, leaving nothing of value. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

FoR, the key distinction is that "impermissible blanking" could be a mistake resulting from a misunderstanding of policy, but "vandalism" implies it was done deliberately in bad faith. For example, see What "Bad Faith" Is. Ignocrates (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Wdford, please try to avoid tit-for-tat exchanges with Fearofreprisal. I realize that it's hard to resist the urge to defend yourself when you feel you are being attacked repeatedly with groundless accusations. However, this is the very type of behavior that persuades the arbs to throw all the bums out. Just grit your teeth and allow the process to work. Ignocrates (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Battleground conduct

4) Editors Robert McClenon, Hijiri88, Ian.Thomson, and Jeppiz pursued sanctions against editor Fearofreprisal, including a topic ban, based on personal grudges. They utilized the ANI process as a weapon, to drive off Fearofreprisal, and impugn his reputation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The "personal grudges" alleged in the above statement are not clearly and obviously supported by any real evidence of the opinions of Fearofreprisal being discussed being specifically "personal grudges" as that term is generally used. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time parsing that sentence. Could you clarify what you mean? Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You are alleging motivations of the actions of others without having provided convincing evidence to support such claims. You also seemingly show an extraordinary interest in your own "reputation," which honestly is not something that is or should be a primary interest of any editor at an encyclopedia source built on collaboration. The sources are more important than any "reputations" of individual editors. Taking into account the content of your second sentence above, which goes further into alleging motivations and purposes of others without specific evidence to support those particular conclusions, this particular proposal seems to me to be more of an evidence of the kind of paranoia one associated with pronounced adherents of any number of conspiracy theories than of anything else. Without such clear and obvious evidence to support the contentions raised, this proposal might itself be seen as being an attempt to "cast aspersions" regarding the conduct and motivations of others. John Carter (talk)

See [31], and look at the first three diffs, under section 1. I'll defer to the arbitrators on whether or not this proposed remedy is properly supported by evidence. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Community topic ban

5) The community topic ban against Fearofreprisal was not supported by evidence of misconduct, was not supported by a consensus of non-involved editors, and was procedurally unfair. Further, editor Robert McClenon’s proposal that Fearofreprisal be sanctioned with a topic ban for filing a “frivolous request for mediation” was unconscionable, creating a chilling effect on the dispute resolution process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Rarely if ever to my knowledge has ArbCom attempted to reverse a community decision. ArbCom is in general seen as being only a substitute for the community, and I do not know that it is even within their remit to consider reversing a topic ban set by the community. It would however be possible for someone seeking to reverse such a community based ban to request such at the appropriate community noticeboard. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The evidence provided at the time by Robert McClenon speaks for itself. It's up to the arbs to decide if the weight of that evidence, along with everything that has happened subsequently, supports the remedy of a community topic ban. Ignocrates (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

John Carter

6) John Carter has made personal attacks against Kww during the arbitration case: "irrational" and "incompetent" (10 Dec 2014) (also [32], 10 Dec 2014); "incompetent" (10 Nov 2014) (Also [33], 15 Nov 2014). John Carter has made personal attacks against Fearofreprisal during the arbitration case: "melodramatic," "self-dramatizing," and "hysterical" (8 Dec 2014); "self-dramatizing" (8 Dec 2014); "self-righteous" (8 Dec 2014). John Carter's pattern of attacking other editors during arbitration cases is long established: "has made personal attacks against Ignocrates during the arbitration case," "indefinitely prohibited from interacting with" Ignocrates, "indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Ebionites" (Ebionites 3, Nov 2013). John Carter has disrupted the arbitration case by posting incivil "venomously condescending" comments: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. John Carter's pattern of posting disruptive incivil comments during arbitration cases is long established: "disruptive during the arbitration case", "admonished for disruption and incivility" (Macedonia 2, June 2009). John Carter has disrupted the arbitration case by posting grammatically indecipherable comments, and being unwilling to clarify their meanings. John Carter is unable to control his temper when interacting with other editors: "over the years dealing with the comments of others I acknowledge that my temper can, and particularly sometimes around Ignocrates does, get the best of me." (Finding in Ebionites 3, Nov 2013.) John Carter has "conduct issues" related to the Historicity of Jesus article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The blind prejudice of this transparently self-serving scree is I believe obvious to all. It is simply a continuation to my eyes of the petty, vindictive self-righteousness which Fear has consistently displayed from the very beginning. In all honestly, all this proposal really does is demonstrate, once again, that Fear is pretty much incapable of dealing with their own shortcomings as an editor and as potential participant in reasonable discussion. And it is this incompetent inability to make any sort of real attempt to work with anyone in anything but the most obviously self-aggrandizing, condescending manner which led to Fear being unanimously banned from the topic before this rather tendentious arbitration began in the first place. And the gross misrepresentation of saying that one arbitration constituted an establishment of a "pattern" is just another display of how I believe Fear has demonstrated him or herself a rather weak grasp of even basic logic.

Also, while it is extremely obvious to anyone that these proposals are in fact several weeks late, the workshop having officially closed on the 20th of last month, and that the delay has been, not unreasonably, a bit of a strain on everyone, the fact that someone would have the rather pronounced lack of judgment to post these proposals a day after the arbitrator said he would have his proposed decision ready in a day or two is yet another indicator of how Fear seems to place his or her own opinions and concerns over anything and everything else. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Scope of article

All content in the Historicity of Jesus article must fall within the scope defined by the article title.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Discretionary sanctions

The Historicity of Jesus article is placed under standard discretionary sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General restrictions

Wdford and Robert McClenon sanctioned appropriately for their vandalism of the Historicity of Jesus article.

Robert McClenon, Hijiri88, Ian.Thomson, and Jeppiz sanctioned appropriately for their battleground conduct here and at ANI, including, but not limited to, civility restrictions. Such sanctions should recognize the serious damage that double standards among experienced editors cause to the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

And yet again an accusation of vandalism. Surely this is contravening wikipolicy - WP:VAN or WP:AGF at a minimum? Wdford (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that making an allegation of vandalism (supported by evidence) in an arbitration proceeding is inherently contrary to WP policy? Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

John Carter

John Carter is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Kww or Fearofreprisal. John Carter is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to historicity or Jesus, broadly construed. John Carter may be blocked if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is obviously simply a continuation of the petty, self-rioghteous vindictiveness which Fearofreprisasl has dispayed from the beginning. I regret that Fdar is so blinded by his or her own ego that they are so clearly incapable of recognizing how virtually every comment he or she has made contains obvious personal attacks, or even acknowledging the possibility of that misconduct. But individuals who are incapable of acting in a reasonable and productive way with others often seek to transmit the blame for their own misconduct to others. Honestly, it was making comments of this sort which led to Fear being topic banned in the first place. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Topic ban

The community topic ban against Fearofreprisal is overturned, based upon being procedurally unfair, and significantly excessive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Aha - finally the real agenda shows itself. Wdford (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It was Robert McClenon, not I, who opened the door to overturning the topic ban [40]. I find your comment here to be hostile. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

And such statements which explicitly cast aspersions on the actions on others without particular evidence to support such conclusions can also not unreasonably be called, as you have described it, "hostile." John Carter (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

To my belief, I've provided evidence for most everything I've said here. If not, please let me know. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Please note that the topic ban had the desired effect of quieting the dispute. Whether or not the reasoning for enacting the ban was 100% correct at the time, ANI did it's job by quelling the disruption and reducing the potential for future disruption. Ignocrates (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No - the dispute wasn't quieted until Wdford's edit was finally reversed. The potential for future disruption is still very high, as noted here [41]. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:John Carter

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Sanctions on Kww

1) Kww to be made subject to sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

OK, so this is really really poorly formatted, but I didn't want to go into too much detail as I myself am less than certain regarding both which sanctions if any would be appropriate and whether sanctions are merited at all. I believe that the evidence of Kww's behavior on the talk page of the article in question and at various noticeboards and other discussions related to this topic indicates a rather obvious lack of competence in this particular field. I also believe that there may be significant other misconduct of this individual regarding topics dealing with the intersection of philosophy/science and religion. WP:CIR is not in any way a real guideline, but I think it is reasonable for people who currently have the honor of serving as administrators of the project, and thus as people whose judgment is considered by the community trustworthy, are obligated to demonstrate that their judgment is trustworthy, and the conduct here does not to my eyes indicate that such trust is merited in this editor on this topic range. Also, it is far from difficult to find comments here and elsewhere which indicate that Kww is perhaps not one of our best admins, although obviously those comments might themselves be far from neutral.

I basically am around 50-50 in thinking that Kww could/should be subject to one or more of the following:

Loss of admin privileges, based on questions of his competence in topics he seeks to involve himself in and judgment

A strong warning to Kww to become more familiar with a topic before engaging in such seriously questionable requests that sources on history be qualified or disqualified seemingly exclusively on religious or other philosophical bases

Topic ban of Kww from this topic area.

I would support each of the above in slightly descending order as presented, but that support is, like I said, based primarily on my own limited direct contact with Kww recently, not as strong as it might be in most other cases in which I have in the past offered support here and elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The evidence of incompetence is available, and has been specifically indicated, on the evidence page. Also, as has been indicated, this is a proposal based on that evidence, but that I as an individual have some questions personally which way to deal with the misconduct in this instance would be best. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

As of now, this is a solution in search of a problem. Remedies should be based on findings of fact supported by evidence from the evidence page. Ignocrates (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed the evidence page and I don't see any diffs of activities which are in violation of Wikipedia policies. Ignocrates (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Blatantly absurd. John considers the fact that I consider his illogical positions to be wholly without merit as a sign of my incompetence instead of focusing the lens upon himself.—Kww(talk) 12:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate why his positions are "without merit" as findings of fact supported by evidence? That would be helpful to get to the bottom of the problem. Ignocrates (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Kww seems to be completely incapable in his above comment from differentiating between what he as an individual considers "logical" and what is required by policies and guidelines. The apparent incapacity on his part to recognize that his apparently total commitment to his own opinions has an undue influence on his thinking and application of policies and guidelines is I believe clear evidence that he is demonstrably incapable of at least functioning as an administrator in applying policies and guidelines in areas where he has clearly held personal opinions. There is every reason to believe his obvious and apparent willingness in this case to place his opinions before anything else, including policies and guidelines, could and very easily will extend to other areas where his capacity for reason is overwhelmed by his own opinions. Also, the material in his contributions, in which he clearly violated WP:BURDEN by producing no evidence whatsoever to support his own position but still insisting on its being considered, and, apparently, virtually insisting that others do what he could not because of his belief he had to be right even without any independent support of his position, raises very serious questions whether he honestly is capable of contributing productively in any topic area where he might have closely-held personal opinions. John Carter (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Identification of bias in a source is standard editorial judgement, and does not require substantiating sources under Wikipedia policy. We do not require a source to say "Ford dealers have a bias favouring Ford products". You are using a policy argument against me when there is no such policy. You have, again, in the above section criticised me for a lack of sources when my complaint is a lack of sources. If Ford comes out with a new paint treatment and discusses its merits in trade journals, we could not take those claims at face value without substantial support from the rest of the industry. Similarly, we cannot take Christian and Muslim claims about Jesus of Nazareth at face value without substantial support from other groups. That substantial support from other groups does not exist.—Kww(talk) 15:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Ignocrates

Proposed principles

Decisions are made on Wikipedia by consensus.

1) In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept. A broad consensus should be reached before an article page is deleted, redirected, or replaced by a new article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Consider this as an alternate statement of principle regarding consensus: [[42]] Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikipedia should not be disrupted to make a point.

2) Repeatedly claiming a policy has been violated after review of an incident report by an administrator has determined otherwise (in this case by WP:AIV) is disruptive to the progress of building the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

What do you mean by "administrative review?" Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

WP doesn't have "administrative review." Possibly you should rewrite your proposed statement of principle so that it matches WP policy? My proposed principle 7 (at [43]) covers this issue, and has already been accepted by ArbCom. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe changing the phrase "administrative review" to "review by wikipedia administrators" might be sufficient. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I included the link to AIV to make this clearer. Ignocrates (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I added more specificity to my statement; otherwise, I'm satisfied with it. This is a workshop after all. Ignocrates (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors should treat each other with respect and civility.

3) Argue facts, not personalities, per WP:NPA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a battleground.

4) Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. ... Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editors are expected to assume good faith.

5) Editors are expected to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors, especially those whom they had conflicts with in the past. One can easily misjudge another's intentions or motives, and an editor should not rush to judgment without clear evidence that the action of another editor is in bad faith, that is, unless there is obvious evidence an editor is deliberately disrupting the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I also included an AGF related principle here that was recently passed [44]. I can tell you put some thought into this - it's a challenge to be both precise, and general. Please consider comparing with the version I posted. Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Deletion policy

1) Implementation of a disambiguation article did not properly follow WP:Deletion policy. Once blanking of the original article and replacement by a disambiguation article was challenged, the original article should have been restored (see Redirection). The RfC proposal to replace the original article with a disambiguation article should have taken place before replacement and implemented only after it became clear there was a broad consensus to do so. A formal mediation would have been acceptable as an alternative to an RfC if all the parties to the content dispute were in agreement. However, filing a request for formal mediation while the RfC was in progress and without the consensus agreement of other editors was an abuse of process that interfered with the dispute resolution process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The RfM that I filed covered a distinct issue, different from the ongoing RfC, and was directed at only two other editors (See evidence at [45].) No evidence has been provided here that my RfM caused any disruption to the article, or the in-process RfC. Beyond this, since the results of mediation are *not* binding, and a mediation can only take place with the agreement of the parties, how can it be an abuse of process (i.e., "knowingly trying to use the communally agreed and sanctioned processes described by some policies, to advance a purpose for which they are clearly not intended.")? Fearofreprisal (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

What you describe is not the sense in which the term "abuse of process" is used in WP. For an example of how the term is used in WP, look at [46] section 3, where Robert McClenon knowingly tries to use the RfC process as an alternative to AfD, and justifies it with WP:IAR. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It's an abuse of process in the sense that you can't have two or more dispute resolution processes open for the same thing at the same time. This is the Pauli Exclusion Principle of dispute resolution. A veteran editor who has been at this for years should know better. I'm not persuaded by your claim that "The RfM that I filed covered a distinct issue". It's all part of the same content dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't list abuse of process as a separate finding of fact because I can't be certain you knew this was a policy violation and chose to do it anyway. That would require I make an assumption about your motives, which I refuse to do. I'm only going by the observable evidence. The arbs can make their own call about how to interpret it. Ignocrates (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

2) The repeated claims of vandalism are a disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. The restoration of the disambiguation article by an undo after it had been challenged was a procedural mistake and a violation of deletion policy but it was not vandalism. WP:AIV determined it was not vandalism, and continuing to claim otherwise is disruptive conduct. diff That said, there is no contingency in deletion policy for creating a disambiguation article, as this talk page discussion makes clear (see Evading WP article deletion policy).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Casting aspersions

3) Repeated assertions that Fearofreprisal is a troll are gross violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Although an editor's behavior may be perceived to be disruptive, it doesn't mean their motives are malevolent. Claiming that an editor is a troll (i.e. that they are motivated by malice) is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. Example: "FearofReprisal is acting in bad faith to maximize hostility and should be considered to be a troll." diff

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't think it's good form to assume that my behavior is disruptive, or in bad faith, in this finding of fact. That needs to be a separate finding of fact. Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither malevolence nor bad faith are required to make behaviors disruptive or to increase hostility; they may be sufficient, but not necessary. It is easier to identify cases of disruption, castings of aspersion, and rises of hostility first. But it can be necessary in an arbitration to examine motivations and to invite that examination. To declare that need is not to make an assumption, although it may state an opinion formed by experience. The arbitration can examine how the declaration was formed, both in its worded expression and in its originating experience, and determine what (if any) assumptions were present. Evensteven (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Ignocrates, I tend to think that such name-calling does not occur in a vacuum, and that the judgement about the person follows a judgement about their behavior. I would say that such incidences, while they may be separated for the purpose of fact finding, still require examination in full context, and that related judgements about behavior are also called for. Evensteven (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

FoR, I agree, and I softened my statement accordingly. It was intended to be a general statement contrasting behavior with motives, and not a finding that Fearofreprisal's behavior is disruptive. Ignocrates (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven, the point is that calling someone a troll is a summary judgement about a person, not their behavior. There are appropriate ways to point out that someone's actions are violating policies and guidelines. This isn't one of them. Ignocrates (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Gaming the dispute resolution process

4) A series of tit-for-tat filings of incident reports at ANI prolonged and escalated a dispute over user conduct. The purpose of ANI is to settle disputes, not to satisfy personal grudges or punish the perceived transgressions of other editors. link1, link2, link3, link4, link5

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Ignocrates: Regarding your link4: My requesting a mutual iban with Hijiri88 was not a "tit-for-tat," nor an attempt to punish him (though he certainly reacted as if it was.) It was simply intended to stop what I perceived as harassment (per WP:IBAN: "The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others.") (See detailed evidence with diffs at [47]) You, as a person currently subject to an iban (interestingly, with a person I've also had notable conflict with in the past), should appreciate this.

Regarding the other ANI links you provided: In each of these, I was threatened with banning or blocking, with Robert McClenon, Ian.thomson, Jeppiz and Hijiri88 pushing hard for these sanctions. I feel these were tit-for-tat, based in part on personal grudges against me. (See [48][49].)

Ignocrates: You, of course, are right. I can't really know why particular editors do what they do. Particularly troubling are things such as disproportionate escalation, and double standards among editors who see part of their role being criticism of other users. In the end, when I talk about tit-for-tat or personal grudges, it's only because I can't figure out any other apparent rationale for their hostility. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Fearofreprisal, you are inadvertently reinforcing my point. You know why you filed for an I-ban; however, no one else did except me (as you say, I can appreciate why you did it because I have been there). The same can be said for the other parties to the dispute - they all know why they did what they did too. The tit-for-tat escalation of this dispute was caused by a series of misunderstandings about the intentions and motivations of others. Ignocrates (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

5) Repeated accusations of bias, trolling, and vandalism without unambiguous evidence contributed to an atmosphere of mistrust and hostility which impeded the progress of building the encyclopedia.

Accusations of bias and POV-pushing - This is where it started to escalate.

I think what we have here are some radical atheists who are emotionally driven to turn this article into an apology for the Christ Myth Theory as part of an atheistic evangelistic endeavor. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Bill the Cat 7: Maybe you could create a list of these radical atheist apologist evangelists, over on your User:Bill_the_Cat_7/CMT_FAQ page? Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC) You are one of them. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wdford, you seem very confused. The questions you present as the scope have never been discussed, or agreed to by consensus. ... You can't just make up an imaginary consensus for a fantasy scope, and not expect to get called on it. If you want to discuss altering the scope (which I think we should), at least have the intellectual integrity to start with an accurate recitation of the existing scope, rather than a grammatically flawed nebulous interpolation with built-in POV. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I very strongly suggest a certain obvious POV pusher refrain from further presumptuous pontification and if I were that editor I would not expect any more warnings regarding misconduct before an ANI discussion on that editor's conduct is initiated. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Do you find the concept of actually keeping this article focused on the Historicity of Jesus disturbing? Thanks for your advice, but I think I'll pass. If you really think that "presumptuous pontification" is grounds for ANI, fee free to go there. This ain't my first rodeo. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC) There is now a discussion related to conduct here at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious POV pushing at Historicity of Jesus.John Carter (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Then all hell broke loose with three ANI filings in succession.

Tendentious POV pushing at Historicity of Jesus

Talkpage violations at Talk:Historicity of Jesus

Wdford on Talk:Historicity of Jesus

Accusations of trolling - Wdford was the first to call Fearofreprisal a troll

This was not a good faith suggestion for improving the article, this was the contribution of a troll. PS: I was not actually proposing a change of scope, that accusation was just more of your trolling, which you appeared to have based on the assumption that a dictionary is an unreliable source of definitions. Do you have an actual point to make? Wdford (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking for help with Wdford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), at Talk:Historicity of Jesus. While there is some sniping back and forth, I think we can get around that. What I can't abide is being called a troll. I have asked him to take his trolling accusations to my user talk page, and he's not done so -- he's just continued on the article talk page. I am not asking for any sanctions against Wdford. I'm only asking for administrator intervention, to prevent the situation from getting worse. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I think all of this could have been avoided if action had been taken after Hijiri 88's initial report to ANI. Since then the situation has only escalated. If all the previous disruptions weren't enough, this aggressive off-Wiki canvassing shows very clearly that Fearofreprisal (also a WP:SPA is WP:NOTHERE to contribute, and the canvassing has made their own RfC meaningless. I usually think highly of ANI but in this case it has failed. Jeppiz (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Support WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDHT, WP:TROLL, WP:FRINGE, WP:BATTLEGROUND... you name it, he's done it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I still think Fearofreprisal should be forced to disclose his main account if he wishes to continue editing. I don't buy his claim that I am trying to "out" him because he edits under his real name: if he were concerned about protecting his identity, he wouldn't be deliberately trolling the Wikipedia article on the historicity of Jesus. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

FearofReprisal is acting in bad faith to maximize hostility and should be considered to be a troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

For continuing to use this arbitration proceeding disruptively, as a troll, User:Fearofreprisal is banned from the English Wikipedia for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism

• Vandal|Wdford Deleted article contents of Historicity of Jesus, and replaced it with "This is a disambiguation article"... then Vandal|Robert McClenon reverted me. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The only WP policy description I could find that matched the result of Wdford's disruptive edit was WP:Vandalism. ... An incident report for vandalism seemed to be a reasonable process to deal with this. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism of article 2) Wdford and Robert McClenon peremptorily and deliberately removed a large portion of the content of the Historicity of Jesus article, against community consensus, and in a manner that compromised the integrity of Wikipedia. Fearofreprisal (talk | contribs) Revision as of 11:28, 1 December 2014 (edit) (undo)

Deliberately attempting to compromise the integrity of a Wikipedia article is deliberately attempting to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. And the evidence shows that you deliberately attempted to compromise the integrity of the Historicity of Jesus article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You may be right. I've probably been insensitive to the negative connotations that others find in the term. When I started looking for dispute resolution in this situation, the only terms I could find that seemed to fit were "vandalism," or "impermissible blanking," so those are the terms I used. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Where are your diffs? Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ignocrates: OK. I certainly understand it taking a while to pull things together. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Re my comment wherein I called one of FoR’s edits “the contribution of a troll”, here are some excerpts from the comments of two non-involved editors at the ANI case which FoR opened against me in September at [50]

I just reviewed Talk:Historicity of Jesus#RfC? and while you are correct that people should not call each other trolls, nevertheless it would be accurate to describe your contributions there as indistinguishable from trolling. It's way-over-the-top for me to complain about that single section—the problem is the overall hammering of the issue with no discernible attempt to engage in reaching a conclusion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

FoR's participation in this has been frustrating to a lot of people, and it times (in my opinion) has employed a style of arguing which could be interpreted as deliberately obstructive. Wdford's outbursts are a measure of his frustration at this; he of course should stop, but the FoR and the various detractors of the previous state of the article need to cut to the chase and not bury the talk page. Mangoe (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem here, as well as on the article talk page, is that you are engaging in a battle rather than engaging with the underlying issues. Use of very civil language does not change that fact. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

For example, at Talk:Historicity of Jesus#RfC, your first comment is "What is my preferred definition? Please do tell me, I'm interested to know." and that kind of comment serves only to derail discussion and ensure that everyone is on edge and ready to argue over anything except the text in the article. Wdford then suggested "...you would state your preferred definition openly, and allow it to be debated...". Your reply was an in-your-face and unhelpful mini-rant. After that, Wdford responds "This was not a good faith suggestion for improving the article, this was the contribution of a troll." What Wdford said was perfectly correct. Collaboration requires more than avoiding naughty words. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wdford (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Working on it. That's why we call it workshop. RL intrudes and I will have to finish this tomorrow. Ignocrates (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think that about covers it. The earlier material, of which I was mostly unaware, certainly puts things in a different light as far as who threw the first punch in this dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Example 5

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Responses to assertions about Fearofreprisal

This is a response to some of the assertions that other parties have made specifically about me (Fearofreprisal.) Arbitration policy says "Editors are expected to respond to statements about themselves." So, I'm covering the bases, even though it's a bit tedious.

Re: Evidence presented by User:Robert McClenon

• FearofReprisal files a frivolous RFM: I filed it to get assistance in resolving a conflict. That's not frivolous. Yet, it upset McClenon so much that he proposed that I be topic banned for it.
• FearofReprisal files a frivolous AIV: The AIV I filed was based upon my reading and understanding of WP:VAN and WP:DR. Again, I was trying to get assistance in resolving a conflict.
• There are times at which the policy to assume good faith must be set aside.: I disagree.
• FearofReprisal is acting in bad faith to maximize hostility and should be considered to be a troll. Again, I disagree.

Evidence presented by Wdford

• It appears that, with the topic-banning of a single problem editor, the conflict has been resolved.: Not likely. The article's conflict level has ebbed and flowed for 10 years - which is why we're here now.
• Fearofreprisal is now attacking me (yet again, and at the very last minute) with the usual array of lies, half-truths and insinuations: I've tried to take care to not be rude or hostile. And any allegations I've made have been supported by diffs.

• It wasn’t me who called in a host of meat-puppets to support my POV.: Nor was it me. However, a friend who I'd emailed when I was being dragged through a week-long ANI attack paraphrased what I wrote to her in a Reddit post. Though some IPs and SPAs showed up on the article talk page as a result, most of the people responding from Reddit seemed to be existing autoconfirmed users. From the variety and insight of their talk page comments, I don't know why Wdford concluded they were meat-puppets.
• Fearofreprisal offers no actual evidence to support these aspersions.: He's right, that I hadn't offered proper evidence. I realized this when I looked back over my edits. So, rather than adding evidence, I withdrew (struck out) the allegation [51]. My apology.
• Fearofreprisal is an incorrigible problem editor with no respect for the values of this encyclopedia.: That's an incredibly hostile thing to say.

Evidence presented by Evensteven

• Fearofreprisal insists the article topic must be limited to what science can prove...: To be accurate, I pushed for the article topic (and scope) to be "the historicity of Jesus," including any relevant material (provable by science or not) citable to reliable sources.
• I do not say 'of course'[Jesus existed]. Fearofreprisal insists on putting words into others' mouths and framing opinions in a manner not used by them.: Actually, when I said that, I was quoting the scholar Bart Ehrman, who said "Of course Jesus existed." Evensteven's comments about me seem attributable to healthy differences of opinion expressed in talk page conversations. No big problems.

Evidence presented by Ignocrates

• Proposal for a one-way interaction ban of Hijiri 88: It was actually for a 2-way ban. It was intended to stop what I perceived as harassment. It caused no disruption to the Historicity of Jesus article, since I was no longer editing there at the time.

Fearofreprisal (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: