Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:41, 25 December 2014

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Edit warring

Kindly stop edit warring at Historicity of Jesus. You are aware that you do not have consensus for the edits you propose, yet you continue to ignore the consensus on the talk page to push your own ideas. If you cannot get consensus, then just walk away from the article. Continuing in the same way will result in nothing except you being blocked.Jeppiz (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: You reverted four of my edits:

• (→‎Widely accepted historical events: Fix Blainey citation, remove "failed verification" tag.)
• (→‎Widely accepted historical events: fill-out Rahner730, voorst15, voorst16 and DunnPaul35 citations, inlcuding quotations.)
• (Fixing typo raised by BracketBot)
• (Added "citation needed" template to first sentence in Lead.)

I see a few possibilities of how to handle this:

1. You could provide some diffs, to show how those edits are edit warring, or against consensus.
2. You could say "oops, I guess it wasn't edit warring or against consensus," and self-revert. Or,
3. We can take it to the article talk page (which is what you should have done to start with), and begin the dispute resolution process.

Of course, I could also just walk away from the article like you suggested, but... nah.
Ball's in your court. If I don't hear from you in a while, I'll post this conversation on the article talk page. Fearofreprisal (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That is unfortunate, we edited at the same time so it may be an edit conflict where my edit removed more than intended. I'll look into it.Jeppiz (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have now looked into it and I'm afraid I cannot revert. Most of what you added build on G A Wells, who is not an acceptable source under WP:RS. Wells was a professor of German with no academic authority on the subject of Jesus or indeed the entire time period. What he believes or doesn't believe is not relevant to the article.Jeppiz (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Let me lay this situation out:

• I made four edits to the article, which included fixing a pre-existing citation that had failed verification, and improving three other pre-existing citations, by adding the relevant quoted text to the ref. All properly cited, and uncontroversial. See
• You reverted my edits, then came to my talk page, warned me that I was edit warring and editing against consensus, and suggested I "walk away" from the article.
• I asked you to either provide diffs substantiating your accusations, self-revert, or take the discussion to the article talk page. You did none of these.
• You responded that it must have been an "edit conflict" that removed more than you intended -- despite the fact that WP doesn't allow edit conflicts, so this is effectively impossible.
• After a little while longer, you responded that you can't revert, because G. A. Wells isn't a reliable source.
• You apparently didn't read the citations: they are from Van Voorst and Dunn (undisputed reliable sources.) I merely noted in the refs that each was responding to claims made by Wells. Further, the article has included citations to three of Wells' books for literally years, which is rather good evidence of a consensus that he is a reliable source.

I don't really care what your game is. I'm just tired of wasting time fighting with you over a few simple and uncontroversial edits. So, I'm moving this entire discussion over to the article talk page, and reverting. If you don't agree, we can move up through the dispute resolution process. Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Blanking of the Historicity of Jesus page". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 October 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 08:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Blanking of the Historicity of Jesus page, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Topic ban

You are indefinitely topic banned from any article related to the Historicity of Jesus. You are prohibited from making any edit related to the historicity of Jesus in any namespace, including his own talk page, except to appeal this topic ban or to seek Arbitration on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests. Any edit that violates this topic ban may be enforced by escalating blocks.--v/r - TP 19:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: Thank you.

About the message: "You are prohibited from making any edit related to the historicity of Jesus in any namespace, including his own talk page..." Does Jesus actually have his own talk page?

More seriously: the only outcome that's likely to make a difference on the historicity of Jesus page is if there are discretionary sanctions. Do you think that if I posted a case to the arbitration committee, they'd be amenable to that? Or would it be a waste of time (or turn into a another zoo, like ANI?) Or do discretionary sanctions even do any good?

Regards my username, "Fearofreprisal": My main username is my actual name. I am the only person with in the world with my name, and have a relatively high google profile, which could leave me exposed to risk, were I to use it openly to edit some articles here. I created Fearofreprisal when I started editing Joe Arpaio, the local sheriff who is known for his reprisals against critics (The county has paid out many millions of dollars in settlements to those who he targeted.) I used the name because I was literally in fear of reprisals. I subsequently used the name to edit Ping Fu. She was targeted by a group of Chinese cyberbullies, in a year-long attack that still hasn't entirely subsided. (In that situation, I was one of the "good guys.") I was actually outed by the attackers, and the WP oversight people responded quickly and effectively to remove my personal information. Of course, in this case, the result has been a bit different. But I'm not particularly keen to go back into the arena. (FWIW, I contacted ArbCom way back when, to notify them about my use of a SPA.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough on your name, I have had experience with people who predict their own expulsion from Misplaced Pages and then are total asses. In any case, I think the amount of times that this article has come up at ANI would make it very likely to see discretionary sanctions. I doubt Arbcom would overturn your topic ban, but there are several more personalities that may also receive one. I am neither encouraging nor discouraging you to seek that route.--v/r - TP 16:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the bit about your name from the close. When we see names like yours, they often have to do with disruption on Misplaced Pages. You've made it pretty clear that yours is related to off-wiki stuff and that makes what I said a load of baloney. Sorry about that.--v/r - TP 18:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: Thank you. You drew a reasonable conclusion, given what was said about me on ANI. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for making some nice comments on Talk:Buddhism. You are an intelligent contributor, I hope that you will contribute on many of these areas for a few months. I can promise that if you keep making these good edits, I will support lifting of topic ban. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: Thank you. I'd probably rather retain the topic ban. That may seem like a strange thing to say, but I can't envision a situation where my life would be made better by continued involvement with that topic. Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Really happy to read this message. You wouldn't be thinking the same tomorrow. It is great that you are feeling fine. Have a good break. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey there

I'm pretty sure I know who you are now. Sorry I was so slow to figure it out. It might have helped other editors if you had explained your views on inclusionism. Anyway, I thought your filing for arbitration was some kind of kamikaze statement on your way out the door. Now I realize it isn't that at all. What you are trying to achieve is laudable in a general sense, but it would be helpful if you could find more inclusive ways to do it. Ironic. Anyway, cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Mail call

Hi Fearofreprisal, I've dropped you an email. Worm(talk) 08:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Thomas (prosecutor)‎‎

You should stop by Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Andrew P. Thomas, Prosecutor, you have been mentioned in a less then appreciative manner.- McMatter /_(contrib) 21:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mcmatter: Thanks. Royalslongbeach1 is just trying to figure out his way around WP. He wants his article to be as positive as possible, and doesn't quite understand how to accomplish that -- especially with biased editors. If the mediation helps, I'm all for it. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Andrew P. Thomas, Prosecutor". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 29 October 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 6, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 20:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Andrew P. Thomas, Prosecutor, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Personal information

Please make some sort of attempt to actually understand policies and guidelines before invoking them. Your edit history is a matter of public record, and in no way qualifies as "personal information." On that basis, your rather ridiculous attempt to have information which indicates a possible geographic connection between you and Kww suppressed as an inappropriate action on my part is an unfounded aspersion, as your edit history is a matter of public record and there is nothing clearly identifiable as "personal" in it. I have restored material to the relevant page, indicating some of the specific articles involved. As they relate to your edit history, they are relevant to this case, and there is nothing inherently in them which would reasonably qualify as "personal information." Do try to know what you are doing before casting further unfounded, some might say ridiculous, aspersions on others. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

John Carter (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Re outing

I think your concerns about your real-world identity have merit. For example, I know the "old" you and was able to find out almost everything about you - where you live, where you work - in less than five minutes. Therefore, this is not a matter to be taken lightly. In my own case, the week after I filed for arbitration someone left a live bullet on my doorstep. Coincidence? I'm glad I established a pseudo-identity here and have been diligent about keeping it that way. You might want to consider a fresh start at some point to permanently retire your old identity, although doing it now would create a Streisand Effect. Imo, you are doing the right thing by speaking up for yourself. Ignocrates (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I have never in my life here ever made any sort of attempt to verify any other editor's real life identity in any way, and have no intention of doing so. This includes cases where others have done so, sometimes very easily. I am not really any internet geek and I actually know it much less well than many people who aren't baby-boomers like I am. I do however know that I live in St. Louis, Missouri, something I have said repeatedly and which is extremely public knowledge. Actually, at some point, I even went so far once as to indicate what my real given name is. I do myself know that I have never even attempted any form of any form of direct outside contact with anyone else here, although I have in a few cases engaged in some online discussion with others, always at the direct request of those others. And, living where I do, in the most racially segregated city in the country, I don't want to tell you all the, um, interesting things I have found on my doorsteps, sidewalks, windows, sometimes broken windows, mailboxes or slots, and, once, even taped to the back of my cat. There are a number of fanatics around here and elsewhere who really like attempting to dredge up outside information on others. I don't myself know that I have ever gone so far as to do any more outside search than checking someone's IP address, and then only once or twice. And, honestly, to you directly, if you stopped engaging in the degree of self-dramahtizing and somewhat self-aggrandizing behavior you seem to rather regularly engage in here, I don't think anyone would care about who you are any more than they really care who I am in real life. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus arbitration case - proposed decision posted

This is a courtesy message to inform you that the proposed decision has been posted for the Historicity of Jesus arbitration case. Constructive, relevant comments are welcome on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk).