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

Passing comment for Harry Mitchell
I have some involvement in this issue in an admin capacity. I came across an RfPP request related to the historicity of Jesus article, as a result of which I fully protected it to prevent edit-warring. When the edit war resumed after the expiry of full protection, I blocked two editors. The blocks seemed to dampen things down, but were only a very temporary measure. There are clearly long-term issues at that article involving multiple parties. Several editors have not conducted themselves in a manner appropriate to a controversial article but without necessarily stepping over the line into obviously sanction-worthy misconduct. I don't know if a full case is necessary here, but discretionary sanctions might be helpful in that they would allow administrators to more easily deal with the sort of sub-par conduct which creates a hostile editing environment. Arbs, this page is on my watchlist (for my sins!), but I don't venture here very often; it may be necessary to ping me if you desire further input from me. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ignocrates (uninvolved)
As background, I stuck my nose into the content part of this dispute briefly to express my opinion during the RfC in support of a shortened disambiguation article. The underlying problem is duplication of content, which has contributed to the chronic instability of the article. It has no obvious reason for being; thus, the reason keeps changing, and edit wars over the continual overwrites are almost inevitable. With respect to editor conduct, the topic ban of Fearofreprisal was appropriate. There is a continuing assumption of bad faith by the filing party in this request that doesn't show any sign of moderating. Imo, this filing seems like a revenge attempt by a topic-banned editor to get in his last shots against opposing editors on the way to a site ban.

The issue of imposing discretionary sanctions is a tricky one. It makes some sense with respect to this article and the closely related Christ Myth Theory. As both articles have been made more NPOV, they have become mirror-images, and the process of sorting out why we need both of them is likely to remain contentious. I'm less convinced that sanctions are needed on related articles. This is the camel's nose under the tent for those who favor discretionary sanctions applied across the entire category of early Christianity. Imo, that's a bad idea. It will lead to a kind of incrementalism that locks in the status quo and discourages new editors from making the bold edits which may lead to real improvements. The underlying assumption equates dissent with disruption. There are already plenty of stodgy encyclopedias. I don't see how that works as a model for a dynamic encyclopedia in the 21st century. Ignocrates (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If it's true that experience is the best teacher, I think the experience of 6 weeks on the wheel in arbitration will be of great benefit to some of these editors. ANI is not a device to be used to intimidate or eliminate your opponents to gain a competitive advantage. I recommend the case move forward to demonstrate the purpose of dispute resolution. Ignocrates (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kww
The fact that I'm not listed as a party here is a sign that Fearofreprisal's filing was focused on the group of editors he opposes rather than attempting to include all members of the dispute. Keeping that flaw in mind, this is a terrible article, and one that is extremely resistant to repair. While Fearofreprisal has cast too large of a net and made a few accusations about motives that can't be substantiated, there's a long-standing problem of a biased source pool in relationship to this topic. The "historicity" of Jesus of Nazareth is an issue studied not so much by historians as by biblical scholars who, unsurprisingly, are generally Christians that have a predisposition towards interpreting the evidence as being in favour of Jesus's existence. Any effort to try to cast the article in that light (not the light that Jesus did not exist, or that evidence demonstrates that Jesus did not exist, but that the consensus that he did exist needs to be weighed in light of the group that has the consensus) gets shut down quickly. Editors that attempt to discuss bias are subject to false claims of attack and bigotry.

The whole dispute smacks of our problems relating to pseudoscience and the various ethnic disputes, and I suspect it's intractable. Smacking Fearofreprisal around may reduce the current noise level, but will do essentially nothing with respect to fixing the underlying problem.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:David Fuchs, the short answer to your question is that absolutely there are problems with other editors. I see Fearofreprisal's condition as being a result of fighting an unwinnable battle and resorting to misbehaviour out of sheer frustration in dealing with a group that generally refuses to engage in reasonable discussion.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Mangoe
Every article relating to how mythological the stories of Christian origins are has been plagued by a struggle between those who point to people in the field (Bart Ehrman being the most commonly cited) and what comes across to me as a dogmatic atheism which says that we have to disregard these sources, because as a rule they come from within religious academia. Personally I see this assumption of bad faith as tendentious but I suppose that it would be preferable to use secular authorities respected by all parties (that is, both within and outside religious academia). I personally don't have the time right now to go searching for these, but surely there are others who do, especially among those who think we should be reporting a controversy which I personally am not seeing evidence of away from our talk pages.

Be that as it may, FearofReprisal's approach to discussing this has been to crush all discussion through endless accusations of intrinsic bad faith and through introduction of his eccentric notion of "historicity" which I at least cannot get a decent picture of, due in no small part to his evasion in explaining it. I'm not convinced that discretionary sanctions are going to turn out to be anything but a tactical weapon in this, but I would be quite happy to see ARBCOM reaffirm his topic ban. Mangoe (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: Historicity of Jesus (April 2016)
Original discussion

Initiated by Hijiri88 at 12:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * 

Statement by Hijiri88
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cinteotl/stats. Cinteotl (FKA Fearofreprisal) is the page's creator and apparently wishes to maintain the page, but fears that commenting would violate his community-imposed and ArbCom-enforced TBAN. He therefore believes that ArbCom clarification is needed for the page to be deleted, and requested that I make the request for clarification (apparently the burden is on the party wanting the page deleted, not the party wanting clarification of the Arbitration case.

Another concern is that, apparently, the page is in some way linked to the Arbitration case, and cannot be deleted by MFD for this reason.

I feel that the page is an attack page, and I cannot recall anyone other than me bringing it up in the original case. The page is especially heavy on criticism of me, even though my Initial statement was literally the only thing I brought to the Arbitration case. I only mentioned the page in passing, and a page having been mentioned in passing and so ArbCom having "taken it over" and the page no longer being able to be deleted by community sonsensus seems questionable to me.

I am also concerned that Cinteotl creating and maintaining this page indefinitely in his userspace itself may qualify as a violation of his TBAN, although this was not the main reason for the MFD.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Cinteotl
Before I can address the merits of the issue, I need assurance from ArbCom that I will not be sanctioned for violating my topic ban for any discussion I undertake related to this issue, here or at MfD. While this may seem a bit over-the-top, my concern is well founded: Hijiri88 attempted to have me blocked at ANI for violating a community Tban based on my having filed for arbitration.(, second paragraph)

Also, I will be unavailable starting this afternoon (GMT-7), until Monday morning. Cinteotl (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm just back from a work conference, and am finally able to respond.


 * My primary concern, and the reason I wanted this issue brought to ArbCom, was the unconscionability of Hijiri88 making accusations against me at MfD, and then intimating that I couldn't respond there without violating the Tban. That seems to be a fairly clear case of baiting a banned editor.


 * ArbCom shouldn't allow this sort of behavior. I would suggest that Hijiri88 be asked to strike-out any unfounded accusations he's made against me at MfD -- including his claim that I'm a sock-puppet.


 * As for the actual content of the page at issue here: The only reason I didn't delete it over a year ago is that I was uncertain whether, if I did so, Hijiri88 would use it as a pretext, to try and get me sanctioned for violating the Tban. As he seemed to be a bit obsessed with me at the time, it seemed safest to just leave the page as it was. I really don't care one way or another whether the page is deleted. Cinteotl (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Xaosflux
Hello ArbCom, I started moderating the conversation at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cinteotl/stats and invited Cinteotl to join the conversation with the caveat that the deletion discussion should not be about the encyclopedic content of Historicity of Jesus but about policy based reasons the page should or should not be maintained - others have expressed concern that such discussion would be against the topic ban, and I feel that it is not and the MFD should be allowed to continue. — xaosflux  Talk 14:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Historicity of Jesus: Clerk notes

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



Historicity of Jesus: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * When will you appeal? If you appeal is not imminent, there is no reason to keep this page.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Let the community process work while keeping WP:POLEMIC in mind. This isn't the first time former evidence for an arb case has come up at MfD and it has worked in the past. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  13:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, let the MfD run its course. If it's deleted we can still read it and I'm sure Cinteotl has a copy if he plans to appeal soon. Doug Weller  talk 13:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Let the MfD run,, I agree with your assessment regarding policy-based discussion about keeping the page not resulting in sanction. As mentioned, Cinteotl either has a copy of it, or can generate one fairly easily. If it is deleted it can be read by the Committee should it be requested for an appeal. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Doug and kelapstick. Cinteotl may keep a copy of the page on their personal computer if they are concerned about losing the content. If it is deleted, it can still be retrieved in the event of an appeal. Regarding your concerns about sanctions: It is okay for you to discuss the issue here (per WP:BANEX), but you should not discuss the page content in the MfD. I agree that policy-based discussion of subpages is okay, but you may find it difficult to do this without toeing the line of your topic ban. I also agree that you should not continue to maintain the page; if you choose to appeal, you may present your evidence directly in that request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare pretty much nailed it. Courcelles (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Pile-on "agree with GW". Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What GorillaWarfare said. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Kirill said it best. In the meantime, deletion has taken place. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)