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

Getting it right next time
No matter how this case ends up, I think it would be helpful to have ArbCom's guidance on how to create a disambiguation article and handle the dispute resolution questions I asked here. Keep in mind that Wdford was trying to find a global solution to the problem of extensive duplication. Ignocrates (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Error on Proposed Decision Page
There is an error message for an unexpected mod operator on the Proposed Decision page concerning the number of arbitrators. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Revised PD Delivery
Due to an unexpected medical issue, as well as being generally busy, the PD will be posted by the night of the sixth, at the latest. I hope to maintain the fourth, but it may be a bit of a stretch. NativeForeigner Talk 09:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Medical issues of any sort take extremely clear priority over this decision. Take as long as required. John Carter (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Evensteven (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the issues are somewhat more severe than I thought, and the last week I've been really held up with other things. I finally have the time to finish it up, expect it by the end of the week. NativeForeigner Talk 05:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. Get well. Evensteven (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

John Carter and Kww
I'm requesting that the interactions between John Carter and Kww be vetted in a separate case. They seem to have a history of bad blood and poor interactions of which the Historicity of Jesus is just the latest episode. This is in contrast to the other parties who don't seem to have a contentious history of interactions prior to this dispute. It will make the resolution of this case cleaner, and the two of them can work it out mano-a-mano (or not) in a separate case. The fact that the workshop has no principles or findings of fact concerning the interactions between them and is only focused on remedies says a lot. Ignocrates (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the arbitrators may well know that Kww has had a lot of poor interactions with several people, admins and others, over the years. If that fact itself were not so visible, I would not have requested his being listed as a party, or proposed any decisions regarding him. The apparent rush to judgment regarding how I structured my comments above and on the page in question also I think directly indicates why the comment was made in the way it was. The fact that individuals seem to my eyes, basically, ignore much of the substance and content of the original statement posted in the proposed decision says a lot as well. John Carter (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

When I asked that my I-ban restrictions be temporarily loosened for this case, I said I would restrict my comments to proposals and ideas and avoid comments on persons. I intend to abide by the spirit of those modified restrictions even if I'm doing it by myself. Ignocrates (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, though I have interacted with Kww only on Historicity of Jesus, I have found John Carter's assessments to be pertinent and worth considering. I see no reason why a separate case is required if there is enough reason here to establish findings. Evensteven (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * From what I've seen, John Carter has a continuing pattern of developing contentious obsessions with other editors. At one point it was Ignocrates (they are subject to an IBAN now.) Then, it was me . Now, apparently, it is Kww.
 * This, combined with John Carter's difficulties with expressing himself clearly in the English language (ibid.) have lead to a lot of disruption to the project. Carter was desysopped in the past.
 * Based on a rather unpleasant interaction with him this morning, I've made it clear to John Carter that I have no desire to have any further interactions with him, except what is necessary for this arbitration. I would be pleased if ArbCom would issue a mutual IBAN between us, but otherwise, I'll just do my best to stay away from him. In any event, I would suggest removing John Carter from this arbitration, as all he's doing is creating a sideshow. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fearofreprisal, I would really appreciate it if at some point you could make comments which don't show your regularly demonstrated attempts at misrepresentation. I was de-sysop'ed by myself, as the arbs know. And the frankly amusing self-righteousness and inability to believe you could personally ever be wrong on anything which you have regularly displayed, even when there has been little if any evidence to support same, is also something that I believe will be taken into account by the arbitrators. And I believe it extremely relevant that the above comment seems to be very possibly raised by another editor at this time, and that an editor whose grasp of policies and guidelines, as per certain comments at the Ebionites 3 arbitration, is itself very much open to extremely serious question. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a relief to find that I'm not alone - clearly has made a hobby of creating sideshows at Arbitration cases and attacking editors with whom he's developed an obsession. He's doing a similar thing at the Landmark Worldwide case, and I've been on the receiving end of a disgusting smear campaign from him and others both there and on the Landmark talk page, on the basis on no valid evidence whatsoever. DaveApter (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * DaveApter, as the arbs will know, the "disgusting smear campaign" you are talking about is at least in part due to your own refusal to directly respond to a question regarding your own possible COI, which has been raised several times. And, regarding Fearofreprisal, I can honestly say I have never to my knowledge seen that individual before, and the nature of his own comments, here and elsewhere, do I believe raise questions regarding possible extreme self-dramahtization in numerous ways, and such overreaction from self-dramatizing individuals and individuals who refuse to adhere to WP:IDHT by directly answering relevant questions asked of them should also be taken into account, as well as this perhaps interesting attempt at what might be not unreasonably be considered a WP:STALK violation. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on my recent exchange of information with John Carter on the workshop talk page and John's clarification of what he sees as fundamental problems with Kww's conduct, I'm more convinced than ever this belongs in a separate case. John has raised some important issues that go beyond the Historicity of Jesus article, including off-line actions that are hard to discuss here without the possibility of spilling confidential information. Ignocrates (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please tone things down guys, I do apologize for the late PD, my back refuses to cooperate, and I think I missed a couple key aspects when crafting remedies first go round. Hopefully no more than a dayish more wait. NativeForeigner Talk 11:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and sorry to hear about your back problems. Btw, this is as good an explanation as any I have seen for the difficulties here: dark matter. Ignocrates (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I had back problems for about two months which made me walk at the breathtaking speed of one mile per hour at best. Again, take as long as you like, and we all hope for the best there.
 * There is a not unreasonable point that not everything that exists can necessrily be reliably sourced. Having said that, there are also policies here regarding reliable sources. As I think both Ignocrates and I know, there are a number of groups which do not meet our notability standards. This includes I think about half of the roughly 20,000 current separate Christian denominations worldwide (yes, really), said to exist in one reference source. And I know of more than a few distinct religious groups in the US which don't even meet the low standards of two congregations not both in the same metropolitan area which is the standard for inclusion in one of the reference books. I think at least a few of us honestly regret that fact, but at the same point I'm not sure that there is a hell of a lot we can do about covering things that may not now or ever meet our really low standards for inclusion. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What in the world are you talking about, and what does it have to do with the proposed decision in this arbitration?
 * John Carter: Let me try to rephrase, in the interests of toning things down.
 * My reading of your comment is that you are talking about the notion that a large number of religious denominations can't be included in WP, because they don't meet WP's notability standards, not having received significant coverage in reliable sources. Is this substantially correct?
 * My initial reaction to your comment was to try to figure out what it has to do with this arbitration, and why it is on the talk page for the proposed decision. On both points, I was, and still am, mystified.
 * Could you explain, please? Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC) (edited 06:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC))
 * Fear, in all honesty, can you give me a reason why I would be want to "explain" anything to someone who has repeatedly, and rather insultingly, said they want nothing to do with me, has rather regularly asked inherently prejudicial questions, and in general has seemed to display as well, particularly in this case, no effort to follow the previous discussion? If you, as you have so repeatedly said, want nothing to do with me, can you provide any rational reason why you so clearly and repeatedly insist on having questions which you could easily find the answers to yourself if you made the effort to attempt to follow the conversation explained to you by me? John Carter (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The link I left above is worth reading in the context of this case. It's essentially about two groups (tribes) talking past each other as though one group (the out-group) is made of dark matter. Ignocrates (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, from what I read, the section about "dark matter" was about the speculation that there was a huge degree of "dark matter" which was somehow seen by some as being potentially as, if not more, important than visible matter. Now, dark matter itself is right now a rather dubious concept on its own. The way I interpreted it, admittedly perhaps prejudicially, was that there seems to be some sort of insistence that we give some form of equal or at least significant representation to opinions which some of us might assume exist, or might perhaps ourselves hold, but for which we have no clear and obvious evidence, or in our context independent reliable sources. Or, perhaps, that there is such sourcing, but that those sources are considered proponents of minority or fringe communities. In the case of the latter, we are obliged to follow our rules regarding minority or fringe opinions. The sort of thinking involved, that we need to include everything whether we can source it adequately or not, is actually more or less directly in conflict with our policies regarding weight and sources. I acknowledge that there are numerous belief systems which are not necessarily sufficiently discussed in independent reliable sources to merit inclusion as per WEIGHT here. Honestly, I regret that. As some others know, I've created and worked on articles myself on belief groups whose reliable sourcing is somewhat open to question, including Church of Daniel's Band, about whom I could only find two paragraphs in one reference book, although thankfully others have found more subsequently, and the Ebionite Jewish Community, based on the name being included in one list in one reference source. We can't include everything, and we are obliged to structure what we do include according to policies and guidelines. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to have as many articles as individuals want on various topics, we should. But we have to follow policies and guidelines in doing so. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The idea of the article is that people self-assort into groups, and classify others as members of out-groups. In this case, the author self-identifies as being a member of the "Blue Tribe", and they inhabit the "light-matter universe" (read: those who dwell in the light). People who have different ideas, or oppose them, are classified (by them) as belonging to the "Red Tribe" (read: conservatives) and they, of course, inhabit the "dark matter universe". The two tribes occupy the same space, but never interact and have no real idea of what the members of the other group are like or what they value because they don't ask. Everything they think they know is based on stereotypical assumptions, usually negative assumptions that reinforce their own group identity. Do you see how this analogy applies here? Ignocrates (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User talk:TParis contains some comments directly similar to that regarding why Tom is retiring. Interestingly, in that case, two individuals involved both seem to be saying that they know of editors on the "other side," and also indicating that they probably see each other as being members of the opposing sides as well. Tom says one of the reasons for his retiring from regular involvement here is that perception of prejudice on lots of sides in various debates, most of which can be classified as "liberal vs. conservative." I do note that classification of "the other" is generally found in what were called some years ago "cults," and based on that I guess I could see that there might be what some might call a perhaps disorganized "cult of agnosticism". Also, actually, having read the end of Ehrman's book on the historicity of Jesus, as far as I remember he himself seems to at least imply that the seriously agnostic/atheist community is to some degree sociologically separated from the larger community at least in their private lives.
 * Like I said or at least implied on Tom's user talk page, the only way I can really see maybe getting around this is my consulting as many various and diverse reference sources on as many topics directly relevant to the article as we can and trying to put together articles on such topics based on trying to balance them and any updates or additional sources not covered in those reference works through omission or error or recentness.
 * Unfortunately, I am not sure that there are some editors involved here who seem to believe that would work. I think I remember at least one editor specifically calling theism "ridiculous" or something similar on one of these case talk pages, and it is hard for me to imagine that a person who thinks it reasonable and appropriate to post such comments on pages here is necessarily one who can be considered likely to be willing to "bend" at all. John Carter (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ignocrates: I read the essay you linked. As the purpose of this talk page is to discuss the proposed discussion in the arbitration, I didn't think it was appropriate to get too far afield. I suspected that even a casual discussion of the article might lead to even more dispute.
 * I want to point out to both you and John Carter that this conversation appears to fall outside the scope of your IBAN modification. It's not my place to warn you, but I thought it worth mentioning. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the digression, and appreciate the note of caution regarding the IBAN modification. As long as we are talking about ideas, and not personalizing the discussion, I think we are still on safe ground. However, just to be on the safe side, I'm going to pull back from this case. I don't think there is any more I can do, since no one is listening anyway. So long. Ignocrates (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I have found this "dark matter universe" analogy to be completely obfuscating and useless, particularly since it is based on some sort of sociological interpretation of cosmology that has nothing whatever to do with the real astronomy/physics. It's hard to have any confidence in the originator of the analogy when its premise is itself so inapropos. Not a sign of a high intelligence at work. Evensteven (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

PD Posted
PD has been posted, I am very sorry for the delay. It's based heavily upon evidence/workshop proposals. I'll try to take any feedback on it into account. Cheers, NativeForeigner Talk 03:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments on principles
I would combine 1. into 4., as they are mostly the same. Combine 6. into 2., as there is also a lot of overlap. Reorder to begin principles with 3. followed by 2+6., 4+1., and 5. It's not clear to me why 5. is needed or how it ties to the FoFs. Ignocrates (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll muck with it when I have more time. The 1 and 4 combination is clear (meant to do it, somehow didn't). The others I think would remain separate (may be reword, but separate points are being made.) The 5 ties to the FoF on fearofreprisal, and on the general conduct in the area. Much discussion was centered around the ANI threads, which did cause disruption in the area. On balance, however, these threads did meet the criteria set out by principal 5, which guides the rest of the PD. At least that is how I see it. NativeForeigner Talk 05:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. All the reminders are similar (mostly) and tie back to a combination of a presumption of good faith + maintaining decorum even when that presumption is in doubt + calmly seeking the appropriate means of dispute resolution. That pretty much covers everyone but Fearofreprisal and his central role in the dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I still think the first sentence of what is now P5 (AGF) should go because it exactly duplicates the first sentence of P1. Ok, enough said about that. Ignocrates (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned that nothing is being said about the ambiguity in deletion policy that greatly escalated this conflict. The inappropriate blanking of the original article in main space and its replacement with a personal version (the disambiguation article) directly led to a claim of vandalism ("impermissible blanking" is more accurate) and a filing for formal mediation. These are the three incidents that led directly to the topic ban of Fearofreprisal. The incident report at ANI was going to close with no action taken before this happened. Since ArbCom is reaffirming the topic ban, how can these events not matter as findings of fact? If the Committee is substituting different reasons for the topic ban, it needs to be clear about those reasons in the findings of fact. Ignocrates (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think NewYorkBrad has also made a valid point about how the decision is (and needs to) consider not only such single-occurrence (immediate-level) points of conflict, but about general, broad, and long-term patterns of editing and commenting history. Looking at one thing, or weighing one as more important than the other, does not automatically render the other as a matter of no importance; it only gives it lesser weight. I think it is the job of an arbitration to establish some sense of where the weightiest matters lie. Evensteven (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm going to address this point in the next section on findings of fact. Give me a minute to set it up and we can discuss it there. Ignocrates (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments on findings of fact
The diffs in FoF5 seem problematic to me, as follows: (1) it's hard to understand how Fearofreprisal accusing Hijiri88 of socking in the past (diff 12) is evidence of misconduct when Hijiri88 made the same accusation against Fearofreprisal at ANI with no action taken. (2) Diff 13 is a point by point rebuttal of my comments to Wdford on the evidence page. The rebuttal is an explanation directed to me, not a personal attack on Wdford. (3) Admitting that vandalism may not have been the best description of Wdford's actions is redemptive, not an example of casting aspersions (diff 14). This is not to say there may not be better examples that could be included to support this finding. Ignocrates (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad raised a concern about Fearofreprisal's "overall pattern of behavior", which Evensteven mentions in the above section. I also agree that it's a concern; however, a summary statement like this is too nebulous to include in a finding of fact. It needs to be supported by evidence that clearly demonstrates the pattern. Ignocrates (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * So far, I have seen no indications of what I would call nebulosity, and I am not particularly interested in compiling details in a legalistic manner. I think that mostly what is there is sufficient, and trust the arbitrators to fill in and explore areas of concern to them in forming an decision. I have noticed a pattern in Fearofreprisal's behavior of stepping over lines, then backing away and admitting some degree of failure or misbehavior when challenged. I have not noticed any want of intelligence sufficient to account for the repeated or continued shortcomings in restraint or behavior, however, nor have I noticed any particular change of overall approach. I am not inclined to think that one or a series of specific edits is going to be sufficient to demonstrate my perception clearly, but I think if the arbitrators (or other editors) begin to notice something similar, that is some indication that it's not a purely subjective point of view. An arbitration is not a legal proceeding, and such judgments, worked out in community, are legitimate, though not strictly resulting from a detailed evidenciary process. Some people are uncomfortable with approaches such as I suggest, as inclined to be open to bias. On the other hand, a strict approach may distort results by introducing artificial restrictions. I tend to favor trusting those upon whom a responsibility has been placed, and let matters proceed from there, for the reason that is it better to let people make decisions than to let rules decide, for which is in a position to see better? Evensteven (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Expansion of Discretionary Sanctions
Other articles on the early history of Christianity have been the locus of disruptive editing in the past. I suggest that the ArbCom also provide that the ArbCom may, by motion, extend discretionary sanctions to any article involving the history of Christianity in the first century AD/CE if there is disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I might myself change the current phrasing "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the articles relating to the Historicity of Jesus, broadly construed." to "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for content relating to the Historicity of Jesus, broadly construed," because, unfortunately, I think that there is a very real chance that disputes might be carried over into articles on, for instance, books or individual academics which relate to the topic in a minor way. And I would think that, for instance, some of the questions related to some of the Nag Hammadi library works relating to Jesus, and some of the other early disputes, could reasonably be seen as being within the broadly construed topic of the "historicity of Jesus." Also, I wonder whether it might be possible to request a call for broader input in the matter, as per NYB's proposal in the Landmark case, and, maybe, an additional request for some individuals to gather together material from databanks available from the Wikipedia Library and elsewhere, as per my maybe silly proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 16, to help determine which articles on the broad topic could reasonably exist, and, where possible, the relative weight of content in the relevant articles. Granted, on a topic as broad as this, I think we could be talking hundreds or thousands of articles on individual authors and books, but it might be possible to at least get together a list of the major topical articles relating to the subject which do and do not yet exist and maybe develop a rough idea of the relative weight, priority, and other factors of such subtopical articles. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's a huge mistake to use this case as a sub rosa way to broadly extend discretionary sanctions to all of early Christianity by motion. If it happens. I predict the community will come to regret it. Ignocrates (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ignocrates, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but could you explain why you feel that way (regarding the last sentence)? Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Brad, I'm concerned that more and more of the encyclopedia is falling under discretionary sanctions, and once put into place they never go away. They have a chilling effect on editing in general. In this case, "early Christianity", broadly construed, is an elastic category which could mean anything a patroling admin wants it to mean. Robert McClenon used the Gospel of Matthew as one example in workshop. That is something you can hold in your hands, yet he sees it as "early". If DS are going to be applied more broadly than the Historicity of Jesus article, at least name specific articles, such as Historical Jesus and Christ Myth Theory, to control the scope. Ignocrates (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Interesting points that I will consider (and I'm sure the other arbs as well). As a point of information, sometimes old discretionary sanctions do "go away"; we lifted them last month on topics covered by about eight old cases where the problematic editing seemed to have been resolved. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It would certainly be possible to enact discretionary sanctions for the immediate topic area immediately, and at the same time pass a decision which would permit expansion of sanctions into some related areas of the broader field of early Christianity or first century Christianity by motion. If that were to be done, I would myself think that allowing expansion into early Christianity might be preferable. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments on remedies (other than DS)
The proposed warning to Fearofreprisal is double jeopardy if it is for behavior that led to the topic ban. If the warning is for behavior during the arbitration case, it should be supported by a principle describing appropriate conduct during arbitration. Ignocrates (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No, a remedy here converts the earlier decision to one done by arbitration; it is a confirmation, not a double jeopardy. Besides, Fearofreprisal asked for a ruling here to rescind the topic ban. Why is not confirmation of the ban a possible reply to that asking? Evensteven (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Ignocrates is questioning the proposed "warning" remedy, not the separate remedy adopting/converting the topic-ban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's correct. , but even so, Evensteven finds my concerns about double jeopardy problematic. Ignocrates (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite so. I was reacting to the wrong thing. Please disregard my comment above. Evensteven (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see your point, regarding this. Frankly he's been non-problematic in this area. This case, as I see it, probably didn't need to be taken in retrospect, it progressively cooled off during the request and even after we took it. I just didn't anticipate this. NativeForeigner Talk 07:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That being the case, let's close this arbitration leaving the topic ban in place and possibly with a general reminder to the other parties to be nice and respect their fellow editors. Ignocrates (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

AGF remedies appeal to the commission
I'm not sure if the AGF remedies are something that have passed before, so maybe they're bog standard and I'm late to the party, but I really hope that this isn't the case, and that they don't pass. To me, AGF means that editors are encouraged and expected to assume that their fellow editors are working to improve Wikipedia. It's a nice ideal, and I try to live by it, but it's not always possible, and sometimes we fail to believe in the good faith of our colleagues. That's a shame, but it happens. AGF, to me, is not about expressing the believe or assumption of good faith, but the believe or assumption itself. Therefor, a remedy that reads "is reminded to not make broad assumptions of bad faith or bias against other editors, even when convinced that is the case." is literally nonsense to me. If you are convinced that an editor is not acting in good faith, that is the exact opposite of believing in good faith. How and if that is expressed is not a question of AGF, but, I suppose, of civilty.

AGF is a core principle to me for working collaboratively on Wikipedia, but since it is about attitudes and thoughts, rather than actions, it is entirely unenforceable. We can't and shouldn't attempt be the thought police that requires our editors to believe or think certain ways. If good faith is a colleague is lost, it should be encouraged to be expressed, not suppressed in cotton-mouthy ways because we're not allowed to say that we've lost the ability to believe in the good faith of some other editor. It leads to sneaky backstabby communication, and guessing of who is thinking what while they say something else. Only open and honest discussion can restore good faith; disallowing editors to admit their bad faith will only lead to it festering on, and breeding mistrust. I hope these kinds of remedies won't pass here, and never will. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. The presumption of good faith is fundamental to how Wikipedia works, and is therefore ok to use as a principle (it's an aspirational goal), but it can't be part of a remedy because lack of good faith is not enforceable by AE. Ignocrates (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree AGF is a core principle on WP (WP:AGF says so), and I agree how fundamental it is to the cooperative nature of editing. I think we must remain aware that assumption is an initial condition, a postulate and a supposition we begin with when facing the unknown. I also can't say strongly enough how important that being tenacious about retaining this supposition can be, in the face of the fact that it stems from attitudes and thoughts, whose origins and germinal points are inherently hidden and ever remain only partly exposed by behavior. And I also agree therefore that it is not something truly susceptible to enforcement. In addition, the supposition undergoes testing during times of stressed behavior. And I think we (I certainly) as editors support WP's approach to dealing with vandalism. But classifying certain behaviors as vandalism (another word mentioned during these proceedings) implies editing not in good faith, but with intent to deface, damage or destroy. I'm not one of the anti-vandalism patrol myself, but I remove any I run across with complete ease of conscience and in the belief that it is in WP's best interests. Yet at those times, I truly lack any sense that the edit I am reversing was made with good faith, or that the editor had any in creating it. In that case, I have in fact presumed the opposite of good faith, based upon reasonable evidence, and I also regard that as acceptable behavior at WP. The difficulty lies in intermediary cases, where evidence that may be clear and compelling to some is not so clear to others. For myself, I cannot say that I believe Fearofreprisal has sufficiently demonstrated lack of good faith in his editing, but I do agree that he has amply demonstrated other misbehaviors that have resulted in the sanctions imposed here and elsewhere. And I must say that those other misbehaviors are reasonable evidence which call his good faith into question, as they have for me. I can only suppose that many arbitrations must deal with such in-betweens and incomplete or insufficient evidences that stress the fundamental AGF posture. But I cannot subscribe to the idea that AGF is some kind of absolute that must or can be maintained forever in the face of disruptions, incivility, or antagonisms. This case represents just such an insufficiency, but should not leave us feeling insecure about AGF as a principle. It is a good principle, but we must realize that there do exist circumstances in which it can no longer be maintained, that we already recognize vandalism as one of those circumstances, and that it is not a fault to say so or to act accordingly when there is strong community consensus that the line has been crossed. Instead, let us be rather stubborn in our intention not to be pulled across that line lightly. We must consider ourselves to be in a tug-of-war, or else we are not upholding the AGF principle the way it is intended, or the way in which it remains beneficial to WP. Evensteven (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Fearofreprisal on proposed decision
I'm addressing these comments only to the arbitrators.
 * A WP:BOLD change of the Historicity of Jesus article to a disambiguation...
 * This edit did not change the article "to disambiguation." While the edit (diff 7) includes the phrase "This is a disambiguation article," the remaining content includes no actual disambiguation about the article topic, and the article was not converted to a disambiguation page (a process which would have required going through AfD.) After I was topic banned (and no longer involved with editing the article), the community consensus lead to the edit being reverted.


 * Fearofreprisal filed an inappropriate anti-vandalism request...
 * Since Wdford's edit had, among other things, stripped all the templates from the article (and this, in itself, seemed to meet the criteria for WP:VANDALISM), I thought the WP:AIV process was appropriate. I made the anti-vandalism request in good faith, supported by evidence. If you want to suggest that my filing of the AIV was a "bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute," you probably should propose a finding of fact to that end, rather than one that calls the filing "inappropriate." Inappropriate is not the same thing as "bad faith," and a finding of bad faith takes serious evidence. (For example, showing that I lied in the AIV filing... which the evidence shows I didn't.) Ultimately, the only effect that the AIV could have had was reverting Wdford's edit, pending the outcome of the in-process RfC. It wouldn't have gained me any advantage in the content dispute, since, ultimately, the community consensus reached based on the RfC was going to determine the content. As a side note, my anti-vandalism request caused absolutely no disruption to the article or talk page. To my recollection, it was never even mentioned in the article talk page, or anywhere else, until this arbitration. As the request was deleted in only 3 minutes, even finding it was a neat trick. Trying to use it as a basis for sanctions is an even neater trick.


 * Fearofreprisal cast aspersions and made disruptive accusations of POV editing and vandalism without evidence or backing of policy
 * The first diff (diff 12) doesn't represent the redaction I made later at . Here is the updated post:


 * Given that Hijiri88 admitted to having used over 20 different usernames plus IPs, was accusing me of being a meatpuppet for a site-banned user, was threatening me with ANI, had previously accused me of edit warring and POV pushing, and had deleted my talk page comment without permission, I thought my response was moderate. If WP:ASPERSIONS is accusing another of misbehavior without evidence, my comment was, at worst, close to the edge: There is, and was, evidence for what I wrote. In retrospect I'm not proud of this comment (in either it's original or redacted form), but, given the context, think it's understandable. If it's sanctionable by more than a slap on the hand, then Hijiri88 should probably come along for the ride, given his side of the conversation.
 * The second diff (diff 13) is my response—in the arbitration talk page—to some comments from Ignocrates. It's a discussion of WP policy, my understanding of it, and my understanding of the underlying issues in this arbitration. I can find no aspersions, or accusations of POV editing in it, and the discussion of vandalism is backed by links to both evidence and policy (see diff 13). (Note: If you're looking for a disruptive accusation of vandalism on my part, the only thing you'll find is this, where I said that Wdford's edit "fits the WP criteria for vandalism." I presented both the evidence and the policy, in as un-disruptive a fashion as I could.
 * Bottom line: This finding of fact includes one weak link about "aspersions," and another link that does nothing to demonstrate "disruptive accusations of POV editing and vandalism without evidence or backing of policy." If I'm going to be sanctioned for these things, I think it should be based on better evidence than this.


 * Some users in conflict with Fearofreprisal characterized his actions as being trolling...
 * I think some of the arbs might be reading this incorrectly. This finding of fact is about other editors—not me. These "characterizations" were personal attacks, with no supporting evidence. I am the aggrieved party in this finding.


 * Fearofreprisal is warned to not engage in personal attacks or cast aspersions of bias and intent against other editors.
 * Both "personal attacks" and casting "aspersions of bias and intent against other editors" are things I've endeavored to not do. So, I'd like to see some evidence that's better than the two diffs in the findings of facts. I have posted a few comments that, in retrospect, I'm not too proud of—but not too many could be fairly construed as being personal attacks or casting aspersions.


 * Regarding the question "Have there been problems of this kind..." and the answer "No, frankly his removal from the topic area resolved these issues...":
 * Not at all true. The article has a 10 year history of recurring problems, including POV railroading, that isn't going to go away. Once this arbitration is over, even if I'm site banned, it's a good bet that the problems will crop up again within a few months. A number of editors have been on their best behavior during the pendency of this arbitration, and without discretionary sanctions, the article will almost certainly go back to business as usual.


 * The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban...
 * I think it's only reasonable for the arbitrators to explain what findings in the community-imposed topic ban they are endorsing. (As well as addressing the procedural problems in the community topic ban.) The double standards in play at ANI offended my basic sense of justice, but I'm hoping that ArbCom is, ultimately, a level playing field, where everyone is held to the same standard. - Fearofreprisal (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

A Modest Suggestion
I'm sure I'll regret sticking my oar in here, but could I suggest to the committee that the right outcome here is something akin to the legal result of 'Case dismissed with prejudice against re-filing'?

Looking at the history, after a string of reports at ANI, a number of editors opined that various other editors had not behaved terrifically well and the community imposed a TBAN on Fearofreprisal. It seems generally accepted by most editors that this has resolved the problem. FoR was unhappy with that outcome and so brought a case here. It seems that the result of this case is almost certain to simply affirm what the community has already done - topic-ban Fearofreprisal from the page in question, converting the community ban to an Arb ban. Even if the voting suddenly swings the other way, the most that would be added would be a few reminders or warnings for other editors. All of this has been very adequately covered at ANI.

Why not just have a single finding, amounting to "the community processes are doing what they are supposed to do", and close by motion, or whatever the appropriate process is?

Of course, feel very free to ignore this suggestion; it is offered purely in a spirit of minimizing red tape. GoldenRing (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is what I meant by double jeopardy above. If the warning, in addition to the T-ban, is for something else the Committee sees as problematic that's a different issue. Ignocrates (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I sort of see what you mean. I don't think WP has any particular policy against double jeopardy, and, as others have pointed out, far from the community prosecuting FoR twice, he himself brought this case.  GoldenRing (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * He did indeed, but the stated purpose in opening arguments was to consider discretionary sanctions, which is part of ArbCom's mandate. I personally thought the case was an unnecessary rehashing of the dispute. It's a sunk cost now, and time for everyone to move on. Ignocrates (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I had actually thought about moving to dismiss the case as having not been necessary after all, while I was reviewing the proposed decision and casting my initial votes. However, I decided that a decision that basically leaves Fearofreprisal's topic-ban in place and doesn't sanction anyone else comes to more-or-less the same thing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I had much the same thoughts on this.  Roger Davies  talk 07:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I watchlisted this case having come across the dispute shortly before it was brought to ArbCom and I respectfully disagree with the assessment that discretionary sanctions are unnecessary. It does indeed seem the Fearofreprisal's topic ban has solved much of the problem, but there has still been a lot of edit-warring and the odd accusation that a given editor is motivated by their religious beliefs or lack thereof. At the very least, I'd like to see a 1RR restriction on the article; that might quieten things down and avoid the need for many future bocks/protections/amendment requests. Pinging and the drafter .  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * DS and 1RR are generally considered extreme measures. User education is far better. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC).


 * My view is that it is slightly easier to re-file at WP:ARCA in future if this or related disputes flare up again than it would be if the case was dismissed with no action. There are some others in this topic area who may end up crossing various lines and I think dismissing the case with no action would send the wrong signal. By producing a full decision, the groundwork has been laid for future cases that may be needed. Carcharoth (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that outcome. I had personal issues which delayed the draft, and by the time I had the time to put into it, things had really cooled down. In terms of the discretionary sanctions, maybe they are required on this article. But the evidence in the short-run doesn't point to that. It's only when we look back 5-6 years, and I'm not sure that attaching it to this case is the best means. NativeForeigner Talk 23:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Would it be worth adding a third DS remedy to the case, something along the lines of, 'The committee may authorise discretionary sanctions by motion at any future time following an application at WP:ARCA'?  That may already be the case anyway, but adding it as a finding would serve as a reminder to those involved in the area.  GoldenRing (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * suggested that, and perhaps I should have added it to the initial draft. I'd be fine with that, but it would also be good to get this case cleared out pre-2015. NativeForeigner Talk 00:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

One of the questions raised was about the lack of any particularly and definably "Buddhist" views of the historicity of Jesus. So far as I can tell, such material might well belong in the article Religious perspectives on Jesus, and, much to my surprise, I found this page which apparently might be based on some sources it doesn't cite addressing some other views. There are at least a few real questions involved about whether there are clear and obvious biases in one or more academic communities which discuss this topic, including primarily I think possible Christian bias and possible Western agnostic/atheist bias. And, yes, even independent reliable sources from both of those camps apparently ascribe religious bias to the members of the other camps as part of the reason for those individuals holding their opinions. My guess is that most of that material might be perhaps presented in the Religious perspectives article, although I admit that is a guess. The lack of this particular topic having any particular coverage in any reference works other than the lengthy Anchor Bible Dictionary and the two extant Encyclopedias of Unbelief is a problem, and relates to the related question as to where in an outline format of content related to Jesus to place this article. I hope that something might be found in other sources, but haven't found other such sources yet. In any event, should that problem persist, I think maybe a broad-based RfC on that topic might address those concerns. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Benefit
I have just come across this case and have a similar question to the ones posed above by Golden Ring and Ignocrates:

What benefit accrues from converting a community topic ban to an ArbCom topic ban?

For the user involved, of course, the ban has a different appeal mechanism, though not one that has much more structure than an appeal to the community - I'm not sure this benefits anyone.

The only other "benefit" that I can see is that the Committee is "seen to have done something" other than retroactively dismiss the case. This is a dangerous mindset.

Perhaps the substantive remedy could be changed to "The Committee endorses the Community's topic ban."

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC).