Case clerks: Sphilbrick ( Talk) & Callanecc ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: NativeForeigner ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
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.
1)
2)
3)
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)
2)
3)
4)
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.
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.
3) Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.
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.
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.
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.
2) User:IseeEwe has engaged in personal attacks and accusations of bad faith editing on the article Historicity of Jesus.
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.
The topic of the historicity of Jesus, broadly construed, is placed under standard 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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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.
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)
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)
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
All content in the Historicity of Jesus article must fall within the scope defined by the article title.
The Historicity of Jesus article is placed under standard discretionary sanctions.
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.
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.
The community topic ban against Fearofreprisal is overturned, based upon being procedurally unfair, and significantly excessive.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) Kww to be made subject to sanctions.
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
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.
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.
3) Argue facts, not personalities, per WP:NPA.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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
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.
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
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)
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)
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
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)
Case clerks: Sphilbrick ( Talk) & Callanecc ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: NativeForeigner ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
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.
1)
2)
3)
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)
2)
3)
4)
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.
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.
3) Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.
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.
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.
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.
2) User:IseeEwe has engaged in personal attacks and accusations of bad faith editing on the article Historicity of Jesus.
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.
The topic of the historicity of Jesus, broadly construed, is placed under standard 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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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.
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)
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)
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
All content in the Historicity of Jesus article must fall within the scope defined by the article title.
The Historicity of Jesus article is placed under standard discretionary sanctions.
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.
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.
The community topic ban against Fearofreprisal is overturned, based upon being procedurally unfair, and significantly excessive.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) Kww to be made subject to sanctions.
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
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.
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.
3) Argue facts, not personalities, per WP:NPA.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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
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.
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
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)
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)
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
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)