Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus

Case opened on 20:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Case closed on 11:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Involved parties

 * , filing party

Statement by Fearofreprisal
I started editing the Historicity of Jesus article not because I had a strong viewpoint on the subject, but rather because the article was so screwed up and contentious, I was curious if it could be fixed. My curiosity got me topic-banned. . (This is not an appeal of that topic-ban.)

The term historicity refers to the quality of historical actuality (or “facticity”) of persons or events in the past. It has only to do with “what actually happened back then.” The Historicity of Jesus is about history, not theology.

Because the title of the article includes the word “Jesus,” it attracts editors who have a strong interest in Christian themed articles. For lack of a less polarizing term: Christian apologists. These people tend to be journeymen editors, who know how things work around here, and they've been very successful at injecting theology material that is outside the scope of historicity into the article.

This is a link to a table that shows the top 10 editors, based on their number of talk page posts (as of October 10. Only recently active editors are included.) 13 editors involved in this RfA.

There are a few interesting things to note in this table: *Another 2 of these editors have made some contributions, but have still spent about half of their edits in reverts.
 * 9 our of 10 10 out of 13 of these editors (in other words, all of them except me) appear to be Christian apologists have a strong interest in Christian themed articles.
 * 4 7 of these editors have made few, if any, meaningful substantive contributions to the article s . Their involvement has been limited to mostly reverting article edits, and writing walls of text in the talk page (much of which attacks those who hold differing viewpoints from theirs.)
 * User:Wdford, The editor responsible for most of the recent changes to the article ultimately tried to kill it by blanking almost all of the content, and pointing readers to Christian articles on Jesus deleted over 90% of its content, replacing it with links to other articles. (the resulting shit-storm is what lead to my being topic-banned. )

The table demonstrates something that is obvious to anyone who reads can be seen by reading the talk page: '''the article is dominated by a group of persistent, outspoken, and experienced editors who represent a single ideologically-based viewpoint. who tend to drive-away editors who express minority viewpoints. '''

Because of the majority position they hold, and their experience with WP policies and guidelines, these editors often push the bounds of WP policy and guidelines.

As a practical matter, this situation can't be changed. While the article's topic is a matter of history, it also happens to be the foundation of Christianity. It's natural that it attracts the editors it does. And it's natural that those editors use their experience and knowledge to support their strongly-held point of view. It has been this way for the 11 years the article has existed, and no amount of RfC, DRN, RfM, ANI, bans, or blocks are going to change it.

For this article to have any possibility of being fixed, its chronic POV imbalance must be managed for the long term. The only tool you have that can possibly do that is discretionary sanctions.


 * Response to statements by arbitrators: I've obviously misinterpreted some of the editors' motives, yet, the responses from involved editors have been enlightening. There seems to be a consensus that there are intractable problems with the article that are more a result of its controversial topic than of the actions of any individual editors. If you can get to a resolution through a motion rather than a full case, that seems to be a good option. While I might like to see those accusing me of serious misconduct be required to actually provide evidence, I can't imagine any arbitrator being enthusiastic about spending their time on that. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please see . This is a separate matter, where an editor has been attacking me on ANI for having filed this request for arbitration, and has inappropriately had one of my user pages deleted. I don't believe that ArbCom needs to take direct action on this (at this point), but I think it's something you should take notice of. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Response to statement by User:Kww:I selected the editors to include in this RfA based on number of contributions to the article talk page, and filtering for those who are currently editing in 2014. (See I chose the top 10. I admit that it was an arbitrary criterion, but it was as neutral as I could make it without stepping into specific content issues. It was not my intention to exclude Kww from this conversation. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Response to statement by User:Wdford: You are right that I shouldn't have ascribed motive or intent to your actions, including your "BOLD" edit. I should have focused on facts. Which are:
 * You removed the following material from the article: The POV template, navigation template (sidebar), table of contents, all contents of the lead except its last paragraph, all contents of the References section except references from the last paragraph of the lead, all other sections (including See also and Notes), all images, all footers, and all categories.
 * The only material you retained were the last paragraph of the lead (two sentences, which made no mention of the article's topic), and its references (of which only one mentioned the article's topic.)
 * You retained 3930 characters of the 51579 that were in the article before your edit, or slightly less than 8%.
 * In short: You removed over 92% of the existing article's content, replaced it with a list of other articles, and labeled it a "disambiguation article," despite including no disambiguation.
 * All of the above is provable by examining nothing more than your BOLD edit. It not opinion, it is fact.
 * I was topic-banned for expressing my opinions of your edit – so my opinions on this are no longer relevant. It is entirely up to ArbCom to determine whether your edit was in accord with WP policies and guidelines (if they even want to make that determination.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Request for temporary injunctions: user:Hijiri88, who I have just added as a party, recently opened an ANI incident attempting to have me indefinitely blocked. The ANI has since been closed, but Hijiri88 continues to use ANI to accuse me of sockpuppetry, TBAN violations, canvassing, and personal attacks, while providing no diffs to support his claims. user:Robert McClenon, who is also a party, has this morning opened an ANI incident proposing that I be site banned. At least two other editors have joined Robert McClenon, despite the fact that he has provided no diffs to substantiate his claims. I no longer have any interactions with either Hijiri88 or Robert McClenon in the mainspace, and both of their actions appear to be in reprisal for my filing this RFAR. I am requesting temporary injunctions, to stop this harassment. Hijiri88 and Robert McClendon should provide evidence here for their claims against me, rather than trying to stir up animosity against me at ANI. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Wdford
Fearofreprisal constantly declares that this article should consider “only what really happened”, but he refuses to acknowledge that there is minimal actual “evidence” on which to make that judgment, that scholars are thus forced to tease details out of the available documentary sources (specifically the gospels) and that most scholars conclude from the process that Jesus did exist although most of what is in the gospel accounts is not actually historical. This is WP:RS material, and it cannot be excluded on the grounds that it is “merely opinion”.

My edit did not blank the article, despite the false accusation being made by Fearofreprisal to this effect. A lot of material was in fact retained, all of it being supported by a scholarly consensus. It is largely the same material that currently stands in the article today, but it was much more summarized per WP:SUMMARY to avoid duplication with existing articles dedicated to those topics.

I felt that this move was needed because of extensive duplication and because of extensive edit warring – largely from banned editor Fearofreprisal. My edit was WP:BOLD but it was well received and was supported by almost all of the editors that had been working on the article at that time.

The various over-lapping articles to which my shortened article referred readers are not in any way “Christian” articles. These articles were the following – see here: Historical Jesus; Christ myth theory; Historical reliability of the Gospels; Sources for the historicity of Jesus; Historical background of the New Testament; Quest for the historical Jesus and Jesus Christ in comparative mythology – all of which deal with material that contradicts the “traditional” Christian views. To any objective editor it would be perfectly clear that NONE OF THESE REDIRECTS was to a “Christian” article at all – in fact QUITE THE OPPOSITE. This accusation against me is thus a blatant lie, and is typical of the behaviour that got the banned editor banned in the first place.

The accusation that I am a Christian apologetic is also a lie – I am not personally a Christian, and I have edited against anything that claims that the gospels are historically true. I created the Historical reliability of the Gospels article and the article Sources for the historicity of Jesus, both of which detail a lot of WP:RS scholarly evidence that leans against the historical reliability of the gospels.

Fearofreprisal fought a long and disruptive campaign against a strong consensus to change the focus of this article and to remove much of the content. Even now that he has been topic-banned, he is still tossing out false accusations against editors who stood up to him. Wdford (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Response to statement by topic-banned User:Fearofreprisal about me
 * Actually, contrary to your false accusations:
 * I did not in fact remove “all other sections” as you claim – I retained the relevant material in the body of the article, but summarized it all to avoid duplication with the various main articles;
 * I did not in fact remove “all contents of the References section except references from the last paragraph of the lead” – there were 33 references left in the article, most of them coming from the summarized content I retained;
 * I did not in fact retain “3930 characters of the 51579 that were in the article before your edit, or slightly less than 8%” – I retained 10913 characters of the 51774 that were in the article before my edit, or slightly more than 21%.
 * In short, I did not remove “92% of the existing article's content, replaced it with a list of other articles”, I summarized the material into a series of concise summaries linked to the various main articles, removing in the process 79% of the (unnecessarily duplicated) material.
 * All of the above is provable by examining nothing more than my BOLD edit. It not opinion, it is fact.
 * I shortened the lead to focus on the one important statement which is really what the topic is all about – “Yes Jesus really did exist, but no most of the gospel stories about him did not really happen”. I then summarized the key points in the article below, and referred readers to the various main articles on those topics for the full detail. My intention was that we would build up from that clean base, but a lot of editors decided it was fine as it was, so I left it and moved on to start improving the HJ article.
 * I followed the policies of WP:BRD and WP:IAR, with the expectations that concerned editors would simply revert me if I had gone too far. Instead a dozen editors supported my BOLD edit, including at least one highly respected admin.
 * On the subject of facts, you were NOT “topic-banned for expressing [your] opinions of [my] edit” – you were topic-banned for bad behavior. Continual blatant misrepresenting of the facts, false accusations, provocations and disruptiveness formed part of that bad behavior, and seemingly that bad behavior is still continuing. Shame on you. Wdford (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Bill the Cat 7
I'm gone for a few days of R&R and I come back to this? Annoying to say the least. At any rate, since others have already made the points that I would have made, let me just say that I agree wholeheartedly with what Wdford and others have already stated. In fact, Wdford's edit of summarizing the page, pointing readers to the appropriate article, was probably the single best edit I've ever seen. It almost brought tears to my eyes. :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Mmeijeri
I'm surprised a topic-banned editor is even allowed to initiate such a request. As User:Jeppiz notes below, the suggestion that I'm a Christian apologist is absurd, on pages related to Christianity I mainly find myself trying to remove covert and sometimes even overt Christian apologetics. Also, closer inspection of my edits (rather than Talk page entries) reveals many more interests: science and technology in general, spaceflight in particular, mathematics, (agile) software development, history in general, WW2 in particular, linguistics, cryptocurrencies and probably some more I can't think of right now. I'm not fundamentally opposed to stronger oversight, but I don't think it's necessary right now, and in any event I'd like to see clarification as to whether a topic-banned user is even allowed to initiate a request for it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

In reponse to Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs's question: there are long-standing content disputes, sometimes spilling over into conduct issues by multiple users, or at least various users have at times felt there were conduct issues. The problems aren't confined to just Historicity of Jesus, the two main sister pages Historical Jesus and Christ Myth Theory suffer from exactly the same problems and are frequented by largely the same users. The same may be true for a few other related pages. Any action that might be necessary on the current page would likely have to be applied to these other pages as well in order to be useful. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

In response to John Carter's request below: There are several editors who have made constructive edits in recent weeks who are not on the list of parties. I'm not sure if this is important, but if edit restrictions are to be imposed on the page, I think we need to have their input as well. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Jeppiz
I've been notified about this request by the topic banned WP:SPA who has admitted they have a main account beside this SPA. I have several issues with this request made in bad faith. In short, the OP has made a table of users (possibly violating the topic ban), falsely accused everybody else of being "Christian apologists", falsely claimed that all other users focus on "Christian articles", falsely claimed that the OP himself does not focus on said articles, severely misrepresented Wdford's edits in particular, and left out his own disruptions and the canvassing at Reddit. Perhaps the OP's original account is here for the right reason, but the SPA Fearofreprisal is most certainly WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons, and I believe both the topic ban and this request proves it.Jeppiz (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The OP had made a table of ten users, including myself . I'll get back to the content but a user topic banned from anything concerning Historicity of Jesus, including their own talk page, making a table with comments about users on that very page seems to be in breach of the topic ban. That is the smallest problem.
 * The OP claims that every user except himself is a "Christian apologist". This breach of WP:NPA is completely made up. The most active user User:Mmeijeri is active because of arguing against Christian apologists. Most of my talk page edits concerning Christianity are because of disagreements with User:Mmeijeri. Despite these disagreements, I respect User:Mmeijeri and think our discussions are fruitful. That goes for several other users with whom I disagree. Having differences of opinion is never a problem and usually beneficial for improving articles. That the OP groups us all together is as revealing as it is hilarious.
 * As for me being a "Christian apologist" I doubt even 5% of my edits at Wikipedia concern Christianity, and a number of those are against Christian views. Here are three such edits just from the last days ,, . Out of the ten articles I've edited the most, this article is the only one related to religion. The fact that I've made far more edits to Larissa Riquelme than to Jesus probably indicates bad taste but hardly a Christian apologist.
 * The fifth column in the OP's table list "Christian article focus". According to the OP, every user involved has a Christian article focus except (of course) the OP himself. Again, perhaps 5% of my Wikipedia edits concern Christianity. In contrast, since July, the OP has made hundreds of edits of which at least 90% concern those same articles. It's beyond me how a a 5% focus on Christianity is a "Christian article focus" for me while 90% focus on Christianity is not a "Christian article focus" for the OP.
 * The OP list how often we have reverted but conveniently forgets a crucial detail. This very popular WP:CANVAS praising the OP for "pissing-off those Christian editors" and calling on the people at Reddit's atheism forum to come to the article to help out the OP. A large number of IP vandalism and SPA vandalism took place before the article was semi-protected. A large part of the reverts stem from that convenient canvassing for the OP.
 * Just as the OP is untruthful about "Christian apologists" and "Christian article focus", the accusations against User:Wdford are also distorted. Far from "blanking" the article, the user made a WP:BOLD attempt at solving the situation by linking to a number of articles. That those articles were "Christian articles" is yet another lie. On the top of my head, one was to Christ myth theory, an "anti-Christian" theory in that it suggests Jesus never existed. Another was to Historical Jesus, an article that deals with what academics say about the actual person, very different (and inconvenient) for Christians.
 * Revealingly, 90% of all problems have disappeared from the article after the OP was topic banned. That is not because there is any consensus yet, but now users of different opinions discuss the sources. Sometimes passionately, sometimes too long and too much (I make this mistake myself), but despite the differences, we are all discussing and even finding common ground based on using academic sources, far from the claims about any Christian apologism. Users can have different opinions and still interact constructively. The OP was topic banned for failing this, not for any difference of opinion.


 * Answer to Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs. It is clearly a subject that passionates many users and as Harry Mitchell said Several editors have not conducted themselves in a manner appropriate to a controversial article That is true of myself, for one. I've mainly limited myself to the talk page, and to discuss academic sources on the talk page, but it did happen that I reverted too fast. While no policy was broken, I could have left it and just discussed on the talk page. I'd say that that goes for several other users, some have reverted each other, some have reverted me. On the other hand, I believe in the good faith of all users except the OP. I don't believe the users with whom I disagree, and who have reverted me, have done so for the wrong reasons. They believed their edits to be in line with policies as I believed mine. So some of us have occasionally been to eager as happens in intense discussions, but for the most part we have all discussed with each other rather than reverted. Personally, I've taken a break from the article for a few days to focus on other things. In short I believe every user except the OP to be there for the right reasons, and the differences are due to different interpretations of different policies. The atmosphere has improved markedly in the last few days, with much more understanding and a common scrutiny of the sources to agree with WP:NPOV and WP:RS.Jeppiz (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
There have been conduct issues, including regarding myself. I believe a substantial part of the problem which initiated the conduct issues, the conduct of the filer, is now resolved by the topic ban of that party. To my eyes, as a person who has spent a lot of time involved in the broad field of religion around here, many of the remaining problems could not unreasonably be dealt with by consulting the reference sources I have found to date which deal specifically with this topic under the title "Historicity of Jesus" and "Jesus, Historicity of" and basically trying to more or less include what they include in roughly the proportion they include it and the recent book of conference papers on this topic which I intended to get to today before I found that the seminary library which has the book also currently has a huge room full of books they are giving away to all comers and which I am greedily and pointedly going through for reference sources and journals and suchlike. I find the filer's apparent categorization of me as a "Christian apologist" amusing, and think that such conduct here is almost certainly one of the reasons for his topic ban. I think it would be broadly useful to have discretionary sanctions available on a rather large number of articles relating to early Christianity, including early Christian groups which are experiencing some sort of attempted "revivals" and the significant number of somewhat controversial articles relating to the varied positions of Islam and Christianity and modern agnosticism or atheism on Jesus and his era, and would support such sanctions if useful clear and comparatively limited description of the contentious topics could be arrived at. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Response to Beeblebrox
I think simply implementing DS on the topic of "Jesus and history" in general might be sufficient myself. I would however wonder how an individual who has already been banned from this topic would in any way be able to address any issues which might merit such sanctions, given his existing topic ban and how any attempts at requesting such sanctions would rather obviously be violations of that ban in spirit and I believe in fact. John Carter (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Request to arbitrators
If this is to be opened as a full case, I request that User:Kww be added to the list of parties involved. John Carter (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Paul Barlow
Ferofreprisal's characterisation of my edits is bizarre to say the least. Yes, I have some Christianity-related articles on my watchlist. I also have "Hindu articles" and "Muslim articles", but most of my editing is wholly unrelated to religion. As it happens, I am not a Christian, though I deeply resent having to make declarations about my personal beliefs or lack of them. Fearofreprisal's definition of "historicity" is equally bizarre. The standard meaning is "historical existence of". No other editor has found the title problematic or in any way misleading. As has been repeatedly pointed out, support for the historical existence of Jesus is near-universal among specialists. This has nothing to do with Christian faith. It's not as if only Muslims believe Mohammad existed and only Buddhists believe the Buddha existed. Indeed, for many years the leading editor on both Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus was the sadly now-deceased User:Slrubenstein, who was Jewish. The principal problem is that Fearofreprisal redefines terms to fit his/her preconceptions, which makes it near impossible to have any reasonable debate with this editor. Paul B (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Tgeorgescu
In the light of WP:RNPOV policy, my take on the article still is and I here reaffirm it:, namely that fundamentalist Christians create trouble inside Wikipedia because they want it to affirm the inerrancy of the Bible and inside the discussed article the fundamentalist atheists create trouble, by pushing the contrary view (its mirror image), namely that the Bible is absolutely worthless for anything pertaining to historical research, despite it being critically sifted by scholars for this purpose.

According to my only two edits which could (however vaguely) be construed as attacks upon Fearofreprisal are:  and. The first shows my disappointment that a user whose edits violate basic Wikipedia policies makes a big fuss about the removal of his errant edits, and the consequence I drew from it was that the user is unreliable and unwilling to cooperate with bona fide editors, therefore he should be topic banned if the allegation (not mine, someone's else) about his edits turns out to be true (i.e. by actually checking what the quoted sources say by actually reading them). As the links show, I am no Christian and I have no Christian bias, I am a science-loving person and I have a pro-academia bias (aka bias in favor of reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia policies and guidelines).

I have to say that none of these links does show a vicious attack upon the person of Fearofreprisal, instead I criticized his behavior, his lack of comprehension of basic Wikipedia policies and his abuse of editing privileges through misquoting reliable sources in order to push his POV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to add that historical criticism is not an ideology, it is an academic discipline. See e.g.. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

In order to answer newer claims: I have nothing against rendering minority views, but according to WP:UNDUE they should be clearly labeled as minority views, continuously pushing them to be rendered as majority views amounts to trolling, and of course WP:RANDY applies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There were comments that the reported users have prevented the improving of the quality of the article. I don't know if this is true, however too harsh sanctions will alienate those who are competent and care about the article and open the door to POV pushers, so the quality of the article could degrade if the adopted sanctions are too harsh. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Evensteven
Real life may (unpredictably) intervene to interrupt my participation in this arbitration - indeed, in any WP activity at all, as it has done for the week past. I will give the arbitration only such attention as I may within those bounds. Having been away from Internet service for most of the past month, I have also not caught up with editing developments on the article over that time. The snippets of summary I heard at FearOfReprisal's topic ban do not greatly disturb me.

I remain somewhat unconvinced of the necessity of a dispute arbitration. FearOfReprisal was promoting the notion that Christians (and even some non-Christians) who were tainted with what he called "Christian apologetics" were therefore hopelessly biased in favor of Jesus' historical existence and therefore incompetent to render any useful findings about historicity. I was unconvinced by his denial because of his circular arguments, refusal to be plain about his concerns and objectives, and his ongoing contentiousness.

The talk page was already acrimonious when I first entered my engagement there, my first entries into this article or its talk page, and my first encounter with FearOfReprisal. You will be able to see and judge all my relevant activities there and on my talk page, where FoR brought further argument.

As for settling any dispute about the article content, I wish this arbitration well. I have presented (in some fashion) most of my own arguments within the talk page's wall of text. I ventured an article edit, mostly an exploratory trial, with a view to getting a better feel for what the editing community's response would be. I felt that FoR's disruptions were obscuring their viewpoints (which were largely unknown to me) by silencing them while they waited for the storms to pass. I did not press the issue when I was reverted, but left only one civil comment in response on the talk page. It was disappointing to get only a kind of knee-jerk reaction, but I attribute the lack of anything more to the distress under which the community labored at that time.

It is difficult to see how this article can be more than an expression of opinions (scholarly, of course, not editorial). The documentary materials and artifacts left to us after 2000 years of history are scanty, to say the least. FoR insisted upon a "scientific" basis for determining historicity, derived from a mistaken notion of what scientific method is, and to what it can be applied. I am only too pleased to have science contribute whatever it can to this topic. Like all techniques and tools, though, it has its own limitations and cannot be expected to be the only supply line in the discussions. Scientific method did not erupt in a vacuum, but developed over time from within scholarly inquiry. Modern historians can and do make use of it, but not exclusive use, because weighing human motivations and societal developments are required in historical topics, and are not subject to neat categorizations or experiment. FoR could not accept the evident.

The best impartial inquiries into Jesus' historicity are de facto going to be subject to human decisions and weighing of evidence. The gospels are the best-preserved documents of the era, and constitute evidence that we have. As is normal for historians, it is up to them how to weigh that evidence. I did not hear anyone deny that they are a work of faith. I believe that the contentions, here on WP and also in the real world, are the result of differing opinions about what to do with the fact that the gospels are a work of faith. Some deny they can be used at all.

I have made no secret of being a Christian myself. I make no apologies for it. I make no apologies for Christianity. And I make no Christian apologetics, either, and most especially about this topic, wherein there is so little factual evidence upon which to exercise scholarly activity. It is my view that the article needs to reflect the existing scholarly opinions in the world, on all sides having sufficient notability, to be articulated in the article with the maximum possible neutrality, and without undue weight to any opinions. Yes, WP policy describes the goals admirably. Editing communities and arbitrations just need to insist on them. Christian apologetics do exist in the real world, and therefore have a place in the article. Non-Christian apologetics likewise. FoR's mistake is in thinking that there is anything but apologetics to include.

As for my past participation, I am not satisfied with all of it. I welcome the arbitration's comments and actions. But I doubt there is much that has not already occurred to me, or that I have not already undertaken to improve. With regards to future participation, I am rather glad of Wdford's engagement and tend to think a balanced article will be a resulting benefit. I'll watch in any case. If allowed, I'll participate, if I need to, but I don't see this article as being particularly important to Christianity, and my interest has its natural limits. It was of interest to me, however, to oppose the establishment of an anti-Christian principle (i.e. Christian belief disqualifies contributions because of bias) at its foundation, because I think that principle would have undermined important WP policies. (It couldn't have harmed Christianity itself.) Evensteven (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If this is to be opened as a full case, I second John Carter's request that User:Kww be added to the list of parties involved. This user was active on the talk page at the same time I was. Evensteven (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by User:Robert McClenon
I have added myself as a party to the case request. I don't agree with any of the previous actions by the filing party about this article, but I do agree that discretionary sanctions are appropriate, not for the reasons stated by the filing party, but because the article is plagued by a combination of content issues and conduct disputes that make resolving the content issues impossible. I would ask that the Arbitration Committee expand the scope of the arbitration to include all topics related to the early history of Christianity, defined as the first century CE. Other articles in that area have also been troublesome. Historical Jesus, which is not the same as Historicity of Jesus, is commonly edited by SPAs with fringe theories. Gospel of Matthew was the topic of a recent moderated dispute resolution thread that failed. There have been previous Arbitration cases concerning the Ebionites. I ask that the Arbitration Committee open a case to request evidence of conduct issues (edit-warring, personal attacks, battleground editing, trolling) in the early history of Christianity. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The argument can be made that this filing is a violation of the filing party's topic ban. I would ask that the ArbCom accept it anyway, both as a boomerang (for a possible site-ban of the filing party), and because the conflict preceded and extends beyond the misconduct of the filing party. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Answers to questions
One of the arbitrators asked whether the conduct issues go beyond those of User:Fearofreprisal. The answer is yes, especially if the scope of the case is expanded as requested. While FOR's conduct recently has been the most egregious, other editors have engaged in POV-pushing, personal attacks, and other non-collaborative editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The question has been asked whether it would be reasonable to impose discretionary sanctions by motion, rather than opening a full evidentiary case. I think that is a reasonable idea, but would ask that the scope of the discretionary sanctions be extended to the early history of Christianity, defined as the first century CE.  Discretionary sanctions can deal with future disruptive editing without the need to identify and punish past disruptive editing.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Hijiri88
I was going to it back and see ho this goes, since it seems impossible that Fearofreprisal could reinstate his preferred (bad) version of the article through ArbCom, and once the SPAs and IPs he brought to the page through his off-site canvassing dissipate we will finally be able to implement the previously established consensus of, to use Fearofreprisal's words, "delet[ing] over 90% of its content" (removing forked content that doesn't directly relate to the historicity of Jesus but to what scholars suggest he did, that ultimately gives the false impression that these scholars deny the historicity of Jesus).

However, since Fearofreprisal has continued to bait me on ANI and now here, I will comment.

I initially saw this ArbCom request and the user subpage and read them as obvious TBAN violations by Fearofreprisal. I requested that he be blocked for this, along with his continued personal attacks ("These users are all Christian apologists! I'm not a religious apologist, just an innocent scholar advocating for the historical consensus!") and his prior admission that he was specifically editing under a sockpuppet account because he believes this area to be controversial. (In fact it is only controversial among the "atheist community", some radical elements of which believe making outlandish claims about the historicity of Jesus will help them in their "battle" against "religion"; others, like noted atheist Bart Ehrman, have a more reasonable position.) I withdrew my request for Fearofreprisal to be blocked immediately because a few users pointed out that ArbCom had been marked as an exception to the TBAN. However, Fearofreprisal's separate request for a mutual IBAN with me remains open (despite universal rejection among other editors); if Fearofreprisal had any class, he would follow me in withdrawing his frivolous request. Instead, he has continued making claims about me harassing him. When I responded last night by pointing out that since "Fearofreprisal" is an (admitted) single-purpose account for editing the two "controversial" topics Joe Arpaio (an area I am not interested in) and the historicity of Jesus (an area from which the Fearofreprisal account is TBANned), an IBAN would not accomplish anything worthwhile. If in fact I have had negative interactions in the past with Fearofreprisal's main account, then he needs to disclose said account if he wants an IBAN to be imposed, but that this would also make his TBAN effective for his main account as well. I have had bad experiences with IBANs in the past, so you can no doubt understand my suspicion that once Fearofreprisal gets me to agree to a mutual IBAN he will suddenly develop an interest in classical Japanese literature, an area he clearly has no interest in or knowledge about at present.

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)

I also think the table in his userspace is incredibly offensive: he made the unsubstantiated claim that everyone in the list except for him was focused on "Christian articles", and then removed a couple who had specifically rejected this claim here. Those who have not specifically rejected the claim to being "Christian apologists" remain accused of having a "Christian focus" in their editing, even if their editing histories do not back this up. Of Fearofreprisal's top 10 articles edited, three are related specifically to Jesus' historicity: for all but maybe one or two of his "opponents", none of their top 10 are remotely related to Christianity. I still intend to ask that the page be re-deleted once this ArbCom dealio is done with, since it is a TBAN violation -- if Fearofreprisal wants to present ArbCom evidence that would otherwise violate his TBAN, he has a responsibility to do it on this page and this page alone. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Discretionary sanctions at Historicity of Jesus: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <9/1/0/1>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)


 * Awaiting additional statements from parties, but a question that might help focus whether arbitration is needed: do parties see there being issues with conduct of parties besides Fearofreprisal? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * On balance of further statements, accept. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am convinced that there are complex editor conduct problems in this area. Moreover, this conduct appears to be significantly damaging article quality, and it seems unlikely to be resolved by the community without an undue investment of administrator time and attention. Accept. AGK  [•] 23:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been watching this for a while. I generally agree with Anthony's comment, but I'd like to hear a few more comments from parties before going one way or the other. NativeForeigner Talk 17:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Accept Still same underlying issues at play as pre-topic ban. I think we would be of help here, conduct is certainly problematic. NativeForeigner Talk 17:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Still on the fence as well. Wondering if there is any appetite for dealing with this by motion as opposed to a full case? If we think all that will happen is that discretionary sanctions will be applied we could possibly come up with one finding of fact and a motion to remedy the situation with DS. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am still of the opinion that this could have been dealt with by motion, but as there is apparently not enough support for doing it that way and there is a problem here that needs solving, Accept. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced a full case is required here. I will wait for more input, but am considering if a motion for discretionary sanctions could be sufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Decline without prejudice. Fearofreprisal's topic-ban, coupled with the discussion above, may help improve the editing environment on this article. I think we should wait and see before we consider taking any action. Accordingly, my vote is to decline the case at this time, but with the understanding that if serious problems continue, any editor (other than one who is topic-banned) may then renew the request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Still considering this one. Carcharoth (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Accept, ArbCom's can help with reviewing some of the conduct issues here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm also considering and reviewing everything presented here. I'm not sure if a case is still necessary, but I think this is too complex to resolve by motion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Accept. I do not believe that the topic ban here has solved the underlying issues. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Accept. Worm TT( talk ) 09:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Accept. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Accept. T. Canens (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

=Final decision = All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Editor behavior and decorum
1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.
 * Passed 10 to 0 at 11:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia
2) 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, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research 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.
 * Passed 10 to 0 at 11:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Criticism and casting aspersions
3) An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalised, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.
 * Passed 10 to 0 at 11:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing practices
4) Reviewing the edits of an editor where there are concerns may be necessary, but if not carried out in the proper manner may be perceived as a form of harassment. Relevant factors include whether an editor's contributions are viewed as problematic by multiple other editors or the community at large; whether the concerns are raised appropriately and clearly on talk pages or noticeboards; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor. When an editor contributes only in a narrow topic area, it may not be possible to distinguish between a review of that topic area, and a review of that editor's contributions.
 * Passed 10 to 0 at 11:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith
5) 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 10 to 0 at 11:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Locus of case
1) This case is focused on the article, as well as various venues in which conduct of involved editors was discussed (including Requests for Mediation, Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents (ANI) – see – and relevant case discussion pages).
 * Passed 10 to 0 at 11:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Controversy of editing at Historicity of Jesus
2) Editor behavior at Historicity of Jesus has recently generated five ANI threads, largely centered around widespread accusations of bad faith or POV editing.
 * Passed 10 to 0 at 11:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban of Fearofreprisal
3) was community topic banned from "any article related to the Historicity of Jesus" in October 2014 at ANI.
 * Passed 10 to 0 at 11:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Change of Historicity of Jesus to disambiguation
4) A WP:BOLD change of the Historicity of Jesus article to a disambiguation by User:Wdford spurred a Request for Comment  and a Request for Mediation . In response, Fearofreprisal filed an inappropriate anti-vandalism request  which was declined.
 * Passed 9 to 0 at 11:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal
5) Fearofreprisal cast aspersions and made disruptive accusations of POV editing and vandalism without evidence or backing of policy though later admitted it was not ideal.
 * Passed 10 to 0 at 11:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Behavior of editors in conflict with Fearofreprisal
6) Some users in conflict with Fearofreprisal characterized his actions as being trolling, and the editor as being NOTHERE to contribute.
 * Passed 10 to 0 at 11:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Fearofreprisal warned
6) is warned to not engage in personal attacks or cast aspersions of bias and intent against other editors.
 * Passed 7 to 1, with 1 abstentions, at 11:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal topic ban
7) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing from editing Historicity of Jesus. It is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban affecting the Historicity of Jesus, broadly construed, and enforcement of the ban should be discussed at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Fearofreprisal is cautioned that if they disrupt and breach restrictions, they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions. They may appeal this ban to the Committee in no less than twelve months time.
 * Passed 10 to 0 at 11:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)