Wikipedia:Requests for comment/67.86.174.158

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 03:14, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * (67.86.174.158 | talk | contributions)
 * Also editing from (64.252.118.235 | talk | contributions)
 * As the above user, vandalized this page. RickK 05:58, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.''

Description
This anonymous user has tried numerous times to edit the article Pontius Pilate to claim that a mob of Jews ordered and carried out the execution of Jesus. As I've explained to the user, this theory, while popular with the neo-Nazi crowd, goes against gospel accounts and historians' current beliefs. This user has also vandalized the article, talk pages, and user pages several times, and been blocked. His latest edits were not vandalism so it would be inappropriate for me to block him again. He is still wrong, though.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)
 * First edit inserting erroneous claim:
 * Vandalizes User:Wetman after Wetman reverted his changes:
 * Again inserts claim: . Jag123 reverted.
 * Accuses Jag123 of vandalism:
 * Vandalizes Pit bull:
 * Vandalizes Adolf Hitler: . Quote: "Hitler da man!"
 * Vandalizes User:Jag123's Talkpage, deleting it and substituting: Hey fuckhead, the changes I made to the Pilate article were correct and historically accurate whether you agree with them or not. Fuck off bitch. Don't change it again. Go play with your fucking pocket protector you friggin nerd.
 * Vandalizes User:Wetman:
 * Claims that his changes to Pontius Pilate should stay because he is "well educated":
 * Again inserts erroneous claims:
 * Vandalizes User:Rhobite, Pontius Pilate: ,
 * Posts a comment on Talk:Pontius Pilate which begins "Wetman and Rhobite are both Jewish":
 * Vandalizes this page

Applicable policies

 * Vandalism
 * Neutral point of view
 * No personal attacks

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * Rhobite 03:14, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * jag123 03:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Wetman 03:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * RickK 05:42, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC). I just reverted his latest revert of the Pontius Pilate article.
 * Babajobu 08:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 17:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

Hello, I'd like to say that Rhobite and Wetman have been very hostile towards me on this website. I am not trying to harm anyone or anthing like that. Just want the truth on the Pilate page. Also, I am not the only one who uses this IP. I live in a large community. Just thought I should throw that out there. Finally, I would like to know what the point of this RFC thing is. What happens? I don't understand.

I agree with this, I have read the discussion and "Rhobite" and "Wetman" have been hostile and unfair. ~

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

I stumbled upon the Pontius Pilate entry having had my curiousity piqued by reading of The Passion of The Christ. I am an atheist and my knowledge of the Bible is limited, so I really don't know who was responsible for the execution of Christ. It would seem to me that the anonymous user continually reverting the disputed entry has behaved irresponsibly. No matter how much he / she disagrees with the other users' views on the matter, there is no reason to introduce actual abusive language, which makes me question the authors maturity: Questions over the faith of the authors should be irrelevant, as discussion of the facts of Pontius Pilate's culpability in Jesus' death should be backed up by reference to sources be they for or against, not speculation on a users' faith. Apparently there is a question mark over who is responsible for Jesus' death. I think it is reasonable for this to be covered in the article as it is fundamental to PP's place in history. However since there is a dispute, it should be made clear that there are different accounts in the body of the article, and certainly no solid markers of responsibility should be made in the introductory paragraph of the article. ~

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.