Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:13, 3 April 2013

Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Gradual Gap Appearance		1 April 2013	{{{votes}}}
Malayalam cinema industry hub		26 March 2013	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al	none	(orig. case)	7 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee	none	none	7 November 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Gradual Gap Appearance

Initiated by Dbate1 (talk) at 14:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Dbate1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party

Akuri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Original_synthesis

Statement by Dbate1

The matter in dispute is whether the information included in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Gradual_gap_appearance consists of violations of WP:SYNTH.

I have made a number of modifications to appease and alleviate concerns that the section is a violation of WP:SYNTH, but users continued to eliminate the information even after these changes. None of the authors described how the modified material consisted of original synthesis (the only proffered challenges were to the prior sections), yet they simply decided to eliminate the material.

In terms of the sources, all of the information was extensively cited by articles published in notable journals. The information has not been challenged as factually incorrect. Moreover, all of the information cited was reliably supported by multiple sources, including references to each other. Thus, the primary sources challenge is insufficient. Additionally, when primary sources were included no interpretation of the sources is offered, which further conforms to the use of primary sources on Wikipedia. More importantly, the disputed section does not advocate any position. The only information that is included is direct text from the sources themselves, thus the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SYNTH#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position challenge is insufficient.

This appears to be a case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_an_advocacy_tool

Statement by Akuri

I encourage Arbcom to accept a case about the race and intelligence topic, but NOT for the reason given by Dbate1. What he has presented here is a content dispute where he can't get consensus for the changes he wants to make. But there also is a much longer-term dispute around these articles, which has been the subject of (by my count) eight arbitration requests in the past year. This is the ninth.

Some of the issues that I think require arbitration are:

Future Perfect at Sunrise's history of making poorly-considered admin actions in the topic area despite being a WP:INVOLVED admin. Cla68 requested arbitration about that issue in December, and I am the most recent person to experience it. Shortly after I had criticized FPAS for blocking user:BlackHades while involved, he threatened me with a block as well. (This was before I registered, when I was posting as an IP.) His stated reason for the block was to make me register, but when he made the block it was a hard block that disabled registration from my IP range. Contrary to Wikipedia:ADMIN#Accountability, FPAS refused to explain the reason for this inconsistency any of the places he was challenged about it. He did not respond to my query about it in my user talk, did not participate in the AN thread that The Devil's Advocate about it, and his only response when he was challenged in his user talk was a flippant comment that he intended to "ignore this stuff and wait for it to go away." Due to FPAS's refusal to participate in discussions about his block, it took me a month to finally get an account via ACC. This is part of a long pattern of misuse of his admin tools: note in Cla68's request that he previously had them taken away in the Macedonia 2 case.

There have been several requests about the one-way interaction bans that The Devil's Advocate, Cla68, SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 all have with Mathsci. On at least one occasion Arbcom almost made the interaction bans mutual, but changed their minds after Timothesus Canens announced that he was leaving AE, and was strongly considering lifting every AE sanction he had ever made. I think Mathsci has gamed some of these editors' one-way interaction bans with him, and will present evidence about that if Arbcom wants me to.

In last year's arbitration requests and AE threads, multiple arbitrators and uninvolved editors said the race and intelligence topic requires a full case, and that Arbcom should open one if someone requests it in 2013. For example, Silk Tork said that in this comment. It is 2013 now, so please open a case.

I can provide links to some of the many arbitration, AE and AN threads about these issues, if Arbcom needs them.

Statement by uninvolved Sjones23

Hello, everyone. I am not involved at all in this dispute, but I will try to explain what is going on at the moment.

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an involved administrator, has a history of misusing his administrative actions in the topic area. As described by Akuri, Cla68, a user, requested arbitration on the issue in December, but was rejected. After Akuri criticized FPAS for blocking BlackHades while he was involved, he threatened Akuri (then as an IP) with a block. As opposed to Wikipedia:ADMIN#Accountability, FPAS failed to respond to good faith community concerns and did not participate in the AN thread. In last years arbitration requests as well as the AE threads, several arbitrators and uninvolved editors said the race and intelligence topic would require a full case and that the Arbitration Committee (Arbcom) should open one if a person requests it in 2013.

There are also some concerns about WP:SYNTH in the gradual gap appearance section of the Race and intelligence article. Given that FPAS refuses to admit his administrative actions and there are WP:SYNTH violations in the race and intelligence article, I would encourage the Arbitration Committee to look over these problems.

Statement by Looie496

The topic area is highly fraught, as we all know, but this specific matter is not a viable arbitration case. The filing party, a new editor, is trying to force changes that violate Wikipedia policies into the article against the consensus of all other editors. The community can handle this. Looie496 (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mathsci

This request from the newly registered account Dbate1 shows a serious misunderstanding of the purpose of arbitration processes on wikipedia. The request should be declined and the appropriate dispute resolution processes explained to Dbate1. Although editing in good faith, he does not appear to understand how things work on wikipedia, either in gaining consensus or in resolving disputes.

Akuri's response is just as problematic. It shows a different misunderstanding of the purpose of arbitration processes. I had already commented in private a few days ago to Newyorkbrad about what appears to be a newly registered disruption-only account. Within his first few edits Akuri has agitated for an arbcom case and his response here, essentially attempting to hijack Dbate1's misconceived and confused request, was made in his 25th edit to wikipedia.

Dbate1's request here and general confusion might partly have resulted from this suggestion by Akuri.[1]

There seems to be no reason to request a checkuser. Akuri has edited logged out from the range 101.0.79.0/24 in Melbourne and Dbate1 from the IP 130.132.198.222 at Yale University. There seem to be no issues of sockpuppetry with either account.

Detailed comments on the newly registered account Akuri

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The A while back Dougweller and KillerChihuahua intervened on the article which at this stage many will believe is named after the arbccoom case WP:ARBR&I. An SPI report suggesting that Dougweller was a sockpuppet of KillerChihuahua (or possibly vice-versa or possibly a meatpuppet) was started and resulted in a one-week block of BlackHades by Future Perfect at Sunrise. The SPi report was deleted as an attack page by Rschen7754.[2] The recently created account Akuri at that time was IP hopping in the range 101.0.71.0/24.[3] They made similar suggestions of meatpuppetry or behind-the-scences hanky-panky on Dougweller's talk page. When asked to register an account by multiple users, they refused, citing as their reason that they could not think of a suitable username. After their disruptive editing (in particular at WP:ANI) and refusal to register an account while editing in a contentious area, Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked the range. Appeals for an unblock through multiple open proxies (all blocked now) had no success at WP:AN but after about a month they succeeded in registering an account (communicating with King of Hearts using multiple open proxies, now blocked by Elockid and Materialscientist). Within their first ten edits, they were already agitating to start an arbcom case. That is contained in the spray of WP:ARBR&I alphabet soup they have added above. They do this against a backdrop of continued agitation by Captain Occam on wikipediocracy. Occam has confirmed there that evidence presented by Cla68 on arbcom pages was prepared by him. That is a new departure, but it has the benefit of being partially out in the open (eg his plans to bring MastCell to justice in an arbcom case) and certainly makes quite clear that Occam is still agitating about his campaign.

Similar disruption was caused by those sanctioned in the review as well as Zeromus1 (a sockpuppet of Ferahgo the Assassin), Mors Martell (a probable sockpuppet of Ferahgo the Assassin) and Boothello (a probable sockpuppet of a banned user known to have been in off-wiki contact with Ferahgo the Assassin). Akuri has written that while waiting to register an account he has been studying WP:ARBR&I—"reading the history of arbitration requests and AE threads about R&I". Arbcom cases are not biblical texts and to have them as a declared focus on wikipedia is a prime example of WP:NOTHERE, a journey into meta-meta-meta-meta land.

Akuri has been in discussion with The Devil's Advocate, who, to his credit, has repeatedly discouraged them from attempting to start arbcom proceedings when their account is barely autoconfirmed.

Here are their problematic edits. Prior to this submission, they had made only 24 edits, plus three logged off edits in the range 101.0.79.0/24. [4]

10th edit, appeal to Courcelles concerning a new arbcom case[5]
11th, 13th, 14th, 18th and 19th edits, similar questions to NE Ent[6][7][8][9][10]
16th edit. Accuses Aprock of POV pushing.[11]
17th edit, explains on his talk page about his desire to devote time to arbcom processes related to WP:ARBR&I.[12]
[13] "while waiting for my account request to be approved I spent some time reading the history of arbitration requests and AE threads about R&I, including the numerous indefinite blocks and one-way interaction bans. The situation that led to my block has existed for a year, at least. It would be unwise to ignore it, because I'm sure it will affect me again sooner or later, even if R&I is not the only topic I edit." That is a clear enough statement that their intention is to cause disruption through misuse of arbcom processes. This is similar to the disruption in the second half of 2012 through multiple submissions (five, six?) at RfAr and C&A.
25th and 27th edits, their submission here.
26th edit, indicates to The Devil's Advocate that he intends to hijack Dbate1's flawed request to start his own planned campaign.[14]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I suggest to the Committee that this is essentially a content dispute and therefore beyond ArbCom's remit. However, considering the amount of socking and off-Wiki coordination there has been in the history of R&I, I would also suggest that both Dbate1 and Akuri be CheckUsered, as this kind of activity in the very early stage of an account is inherently suspicious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Note to Clerk: Could a Clerk please notify Future Perfect at Sunrise that his actions have been mentioned and that he has the right to submit a statement? Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gradual Gap Appearance: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/1/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

Decline. The issue raised by Dbate1 is a primarily a content disagreement that should be discussed on the talkpage. If a consensus is reached on the talkpage, it should be implemented; no one user has the right to dictate the content of an article. If no consensus is reached, forms of dispute resolution well short of arbitration, which is the final step in our dispute resolution processes, should be used. Dbate1 is also advised that references to "disciplinary action" and "banning" of other editors, as in this edit summary, are not appropriate. The issues raised by other commenters do not persuade me that an arbitration case is needed. I have no interest in revisiting the existing interaction bans, and there is no showing of recent misbehavior or ongoing problems that we could be helpful in resolving. I interpret my colleague's prior reference to our accepting a case in 2013 to mean that we should seriously consider accepting a case if actual problems continued, not as a commitment that we would do so simply upon request, and certainly not at the behest of a brand-new editor who seems to have come to Wikipedia for the very purpose of stirring up a case. A statement from Fut.Perf. explaining the actions that Sjones23 has questioned would be in order, but having read the relevant threads I believe I understand the reasoning behind those actions. I will leave it for someone else to assess the suggestion for a checkuser. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malayalam cinema industry hub

Initiated by Prathambhu (talk) at 19:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Prathambhu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
69.47.228.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Aarem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Salih (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Samaleks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In addition several IPs (possibly sock puppets) also are involved.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Prathambhu

The matter of dispute in Malayalam cinema page is the hub of the Malayalam cinema industry. The version existed till February 18, 2013 said the present hub of Malayalam film industry is Kochi. This information was supported by citations based on published information in reliable sources in English such as The Hindu, Times of India, Indian Express, New Indian Express, Passline Business Magazine, Deccan Chronicle and in Malayalam such as Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhumi and Deshabhimani which are the most widely read newspapers of India and Kerala. All of this published information stated that Kochi is the hub of Malayalam cinema industry presently. Some reports also said that Malayalam cinema industry have shifted to Kochi from its earlier bases in Chennai and Thiruvananthapuram. The same information existed in South Indian film industry page too for many months.

From February 18, 2013 onwards IP numbered 69.47.228.36 started editing out the information existed then, along with citations. In place of it, IP number 69.47.228.36 inserted the claim that "Thiruvananthapuram is also a hub of Malayalam cinema industry". There were no citations from reliable sources s/he could provide for this claim. IP number 69.47.228.36 removed the citations that existed as s/he found that most of those news reports contradicted her/his claims. Despite talk page discussions this continued. There was a prolonged edit war in which user IP number 69.47.228.36 was supported by User:Aarem, User:Salih and numerous IPs, many of them numbered alike (suspected sock puppets).

The edit war spilt into South Indian film industry where information existed there for many months were removed by the above editors and also User:Samaleks. It further spread into Cinema of India too. Followed by a freeze of edit of Malayalam cinema by administrator User:Ged UK, there was an even longer talk page discussion. The dispute remained unresolved. Further under the suggestion of administrator User:Ged UK, I placed a Request for Comments in the Talk:Malayalam cinema. Apart from IP number 69.47.228.36, a few other IPs similar to the ones that took part in the edit war also made comments in the Request for Comments section.

In there, I tried to point out that any claim needs to be supported with information published in reliable sources as per core sourcing policy of Wikipedia Wikipedia:Verifiability and also Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.

The problems with the present version inserted by the above editors in Malayalam cinema page is that

1) not a single published information is found in support of this claim

2) it contradicts most of the available published information in reliable sources such as the ones mentioned above.

Presently IP number 69.47.228.36 insists that her/his claim be accepted without any evidence in the form of published information from reliable sources. In the Talk:Malayalam cinema page, IP numbered 69.47.228.36 even went on to overrule Wikipedia sourcing policy. As one can see in the latest response from IP number 69.47.228.36, s/he has referred to all media as liars, apart from calling me so.

In view of this, I am forced to abandon any hope for reasoning with this group who are here with a set agenda. This group have shown the audacity to overrule Wikipedia's policy and I found it safer to end the discussion in talk page and request arbitration. Let me request the Wikipedia administrators to kindly to look into this issue and hope for a resolution in accordance with Wikipedia's stated policies. Thank you, Sincerely Prathambhu (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aarem

Malayalam Cinema is not centered in Kochi. Most of the production facilities are in Trivandrum. The leading production facilities in Kochi includes Max Labs, Lal Media, Navodaya(not fully functional now) and sound recording studio annex of Chitranjali. There is no leading animation studios in Kochi and no studios with large campus for outdoor shooting facility. 60% of the films that are now released in Malayalam is being shot in Kochi and suburbs. But that alone does not make it to be called the centre of industry. If in that case, before 10 years, 60% of the films were shot in villages of Ottapalam and Pollachi. Can it be then declared as the centre of the industry?

Trivandrum is having the maximum number of studio facilities and production facilities. This includes:

Chitranjali studios - with and indoor studio of around 12,000 sq.ft. (second largest indoor in Asia) with sound proof floor

Outdoor campus of 70 acres. Pre built Out door of Police station, Hospital, Class room, Office rooms, Village houses, Temple, etc are available. Chitranjali studio has a single window system to obtain permission from the Government Departments and agencies for various locations for shooting. It has recording studios, preview theatre, four outdoor film units, reel printing facilities

Prasad Colour Labs - The leading colour labs in South India has its facilities in Trivandrum.

This is the only processing lab in Kerala. They are the pioneer in Digital processing and negative processing in South India. They are the leading colour lab in Graphics (VFX) and not only Malayalam films are processed in their facility in Trivandrum (eg; Enthiran post production works were done here).

Merryland studios - with a big outdoor campus facility of 36 acres. Now mostly used for mega serials

Accel Animation Studios – More known for its motion capture facilities and 3D graphics.

Vismayas Max – First DTS studio in Kerala. It has both animation facilities and regular film editing facilities. The sound recording unit of Vismaya is having a branch at Kochi too.

Toonz Animation – Subsidiary of Singapore based Toonz company. Major works include Indian releases like Tenali Raman, Hanuman, etc and international releases like XMen and Wolverine, Gatturro etc.

Also, if you look at the addresses of actors published in the official website of AMMA(Association of Malayalam Movie Artistes), majority are given the address at Trivandrum as their permanent address.addresses link Even AMMA is headquartered in Thycaud, Trivandrum. If Kochi is the centre of the industry, why Association of Malayalam Movie Artistes(AMMA) is not headquartered in Kochi ?

There are many companies in Kinfra film and Video park with full SEZ facilities for animation and gaming. There are hundreds of small studios in the city to support all the "serial" shooting and production for various TV channels. Trivandrum has much more production facilities than any other city in Kerala. Events like International Film Festival of Kerala (IFFK) and presence of organizations like Kerala Film Development Corporation, Chalachitra Academy, Soorya etc are in Trivandrum.

Citations are available for all these organizations. The links provided by User:Prathambhu are featured articles in the city page with peacock terms and biased reports to promote real estate and business in a region.

So in short, the movie industry in Kerala is not centred only in one location. Major facilities are in Trivandrum followed by Kochi. So to be impartial, no one can say that Malayalam movie industry is only centered in Kochi. Infact, it is scattered across Kerala with more presence in Trivandrum and Kochi.

The current statement is the article is as follows : " Malayalam film industry returned and established itself in Kerala with a major chunk of locations, studios, production and post-production facilities in Thiruvananthapuram and Kochi. " There is nothing wrong in this statement, as you can find majority of the studios and production facilities in both the cities. There is no official status like "centre of film industry". Cheers, -- Aarem ^(Talk) 10:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I support a sock puppet investigation as the User:ChroniclerSanjay(Special:Contributions/ChroniclerSanjay) is suspected to be the sock of User:Prathambhu.

@Newyorkbrad: Note: You may check here, what a neutral user has to say as a response to "Request for Comment" : by User:Jack Sebastian and response. -- Aarem ^(Talk)

Statement by Salih

No case for arbitration has been made out. What is happening at Malayalam cinema is that a bunch of users (probably socks) want to glorify their city - Kochi. For this purpose they are cherry picking the sources to conclude that Kochi is the 'hub' of Malayalam cinema. This not true as an equal number or more film studios and production facilities exist in Thiruvananthapuram as well. Besides, the shooting of Malayalam cinema, as User Aarem points out, is scattered across Kerala with more presence in Thiruvananthapuram and Kochi. This case may be closed without further action. Salih (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Malayalam cinema industry hub: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

Comment: This sounds like a situation where page protection or a community discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard might be helpful at this point. Administrators who happen to be perusing this page might want to take a look and see if the pages involved should indeed be semi-protected, and whether or not a bunch of blocks should be handed out. A few hours of work now might nip this in the bud. A sockpuppet investigation request might also be in order. Awaiting other statements. Risker (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline. Risker (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On a preliminary review I am in general agreement with Risker. Some participation by previously uninvolved editors with subject-matter expertise might also be helpful here. (I seem to be saying that a lot lately.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per above. NW (Talk) 15:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, there are problems here, but should be able to be dealt with short of arbitration. Carcharoth (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Request is very premature. AGK [•] 12:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. As Risker rightly points out, this is a dispute on a single issue that can be much better served by resolving the issue itself rather than ArbCom's conduct evaluations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. This is an editorial matter which is resolved by discussion and examination of sources. It is not a conduct dispute. Sometimes researching and resolving editorial matters takes time. However, there is no haste. If we take matters slowly and politely and assume good faith, we get to the truth. If a user or body of users refuse to discuss the matter reasonably, and disrupt the article repeatedly despite warnings, they may be topic banned or blocked by an independent admin or by consensus discussion at a venue such as ANI. ArbCom tends to deal with both more advanced AND more complex conduct disputes - ones in which no consensus can be found after discussion at a venue such as ANI. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. T. Canens (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 208: / Line 208: @@
 * '''Decline.''' This is an editorial matter which is resolved by discussion and examination of sources. It is not a conduct dispute. Sometimes researching and resolving editorial matters takes time. However, there is no haste. If we take matters slowly and politely and assume good faith, we get to the truth. If a user or body of users refuse to discuss the matter reasonably, and disrupt the article repeatedly despite warnings, they may be topic banned or blocked by an independent admin or by consensus discussion at a venue such as ANI. ArbCom tends to deal with both more advanced AND more complex conduct disputes - ones in which no consensus can be found after discussion at a venue such as ANI. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<font color="#347C2C"><sup>✔Tea time</sup></font>]]''' 17:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 *'''Decline'''. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 18:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
-== Jesus ==
-'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Humanpublic|Humanpublic]] ([[User talk:Humanpublic|talk]]) '''at''' 18:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
-=== Involved parties ===
-<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
-*{{userlinks|Humanpublic}}, ''filing party''
-*{{userlinks|History2007}}
-*{{userlinks|Jeppiz}}
-*{{userlinks|Seb az86556}}
-<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->
-;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
-<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
-*Diff. 1
-*Diff. 2
-;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
-<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
-*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#Censorship_by_archiving
-*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#Jesus_Resurrected_.28Unfortunately.29
-*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_62#Jesus.2CArgument_from_silence
-*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_144#History_Dept._at_U._Massachusetts
-*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_143#Dictionary_of_Foregon_Terms_as_Historical_Method_Source
-*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive787#Long_history_of_PA
-*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive246#Topic_ban_for_Humanpublic
-=== Statement by Humanpublic ===
-I believe there is a dispute requiring intervention involving Jeppiz, History2007, Seb, and several others regarding the topic of the historicity of Jesus. The handling of the dispute thus far is characterized by unequal treatment, a topic ban based on wrong info, misleading characterizations of editors (such as yours truly), stereotypes of religious skepticism, lawyering to keep legitimate skeptical content out of [[Jesus]], lawyering to trick and trap editors into being banned, forum shopping, misleading and fallacious insertion of sources into articles, and hounding an editor (yours truly) from one article to another.
-Examples:
-* Active Talk discussion forciby archived, twice. When I try to de-archive it, I am insulted "your useless deaf ears", reported for 3RR, and warned [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHumanpublic&diff=529646652&oldid=529644977] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Humanpublic&diff=next&oldid=529647130] The editor who insulted me is not warned. (This editor, Ian.thomson, previously said to another editor on Talk:Jesus: "Take your WP:BATTELGROUND attitude and bigoted and unfounded accusations of bias elsewhere, you blind fool....you're too much of a crusading bigot to contribute anything worthwhile.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=515237413])
-* Then Seb az86556  does the whole forced archiving thing again, I complain, and Seb is warned [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#Censorship_by_archiving]
-* I went to ANI to complain about Seb az86556 on Feb. 15.
-:*Jeppiz shows up at [[Jesus]] immediately thereafter, and repeatedly reverts me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=538645004&oldid=538644169], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=538646174&oldid=538645561], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=538729103&oldid=538726748]. Feb. 17 he follows me to [[Christ myth theory]], where his only edit is to revert me. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=538729575&oldid=538725792]. Then he shows up at [[Argument from silence]], which I've been editing, where he doesn't directly revert me (I've mostly stopped editing articles by now), but does oppose my view of the article.
-:*Seb az86556 follows me to [[Christ myth theory]], where his only edit in the history of the article is to revert me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christ_myth_theory&diff=538661680&oldid=538660361]. He makes no comment on Talk. Then he follows me to [[Argument from silence]] where his only edits are to revert me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Argument_from_silence&diff=545484685&oldid=545481394] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Argument_from_silence&diff=539985449&oldid=539968610]. Again, no comments on Talk.
-*History2007, who almost exclusively edits Bible-related articles, frequently misrepresents sources. In one of Seb's reverts of me above, History2007 had used an example of ''usage'' of "argument from silence" from a dictionary as a claim about the concept. Recently, he added this text "arguments from silence themselves are also generally viewed as rather weak in many cases; or considered as falacies.[6][7]" which misrepresents source #7. While editing Jesus, he copy/pasted an entire paragraph of text from [[Christ myth theory]] that included several book-length sources. I asked him to provide the quotes from the books, and replied: "Trust me on that one per WP:AGF. I do not need to quote my source so you can assess it" and it became apparent he hadn't read all the sources he copy/pasted.
-*The other observations I wish to make 1) I'm the only editor to attempt DR, yet I was banned for lack of collaboration, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_62#Jesus.2CArgument_from_silence], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_144#History_Dept._at_U._Massachusetts] 2) I am constantly being accused of arguing Jesus didn't exist: ""POV-pushing, fringe and unsourced personal agenda....etc" I don't have an opinion on the historicity of Jesus. The fact that there is no evidence that dates from his time belongs on Wikipedia without being pooh-poohed and downplayed. I also think there are no RS for what "ALL scholars believe". Those are the main two positions I've advocated. Neither is fringe or POV promoting, it is not “forum” to make the case on relevant Talk pages. I am now topic-banned from discussing the validity of a source that mentions religion, regarding an article not directly related to religion [[Argument from Silence]].
-There are also multiple false accusations of vandalism, etc. that are on my Talk page. Obviously I haven't been a little angel. But I've been harassed, characterized in unfair and stereotypical ways, and admin treatment has been unequal. So, I'm frustrated. There is an overall atmosphere of vindictiveness, gamesmanship, and stereotyping in these areas. I asked for DR, and then was topic-banned with nobody trying DR first. [[User:Humanpublic|Humanpublic]] ([[User talk:Humanpublic|talk]]) 18:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
-:@Beyond My Ken. I made this request because, among other reasons, I was told it is how I should appeal my topic-ban. [[User:Humanpublic|Humanpublic]] ([[User talk:Humanpublic|talk]]) 23:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
-::@Arbitrators. I can't return to ANI and AN with these points. I would immediately be accused of "forum" and "point" and disruption. There would be an immediate proposal for a site-wide ban. I can't believe you've read through all the threads that are basically popularity contests, understood the atmosphere there, and think I should go back. It needs something not based on quick judgements by the crowd. [[User:Humanpublic|Humanpublic]] ([[User talk:Humanpublic|talk]]) 13:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
-Is this policy: "If a user in good standing believes that something is part of your topic ban, then it is part of your topic ban, period." You might as well sew a yellow badge on me. [[User:Humanpublic|Humanpublic]] ([[User talk:Humanpublic|talk]]) 14:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
-:I was expecting arbitration to find out the facts. The comment by Newyorkbrad, widely endorsed, is utterly wrong as a matter of fact: "Many of Humanpublic's edits consist of his pointing out, in articles about Biblical topics, that Biblical events such as the resurrection of Jesus are not possible according to science"
-:* I've made one edit on that topic to an article (Resurrection of Jesus) in  my time on here.
-:* I've never made an edit to that article's Talk page.
-:* I've seriously edited one article on Biblical topics (Jesus). My themes on that article are what I said above (and nobody read): A factual, sourced addition to the article about lack of evidence, and questioning whether it's fair to make an aboslute statement about what "ALL" scholars believe. That's it.
-:* The theme Newyorkbrad mentions is not something I care about, or have pursued.
-:* The theme Newyorkbrad attributes to me wasn't mentioned in any of the discussions on ANI or AN. It has nothing to do with my topic-ban or why I'm here.
-:* Newyorkbrad's comment is reminiscent of previous discussion in that it is based on assumptions and stereotypes: I am presumed to think Jesus didn't exist, presumed to be anti-Christian, anti-faith, POV-pushing, and agenda-driven. I'm none of those things.[[User:Humanpublic|Humanpublic]] ([[User talk:Humanpublic|talk]]) 04:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
-::*Regarding civility--"repeated instances of grossly uncivil commentary and personal attacks". Everything I've said to others is identical or similar to what others said to me. I believe History2007 consistently ''misrepresents'' sources. If there is a strong community preference for that wording over "dishonest", then make it clear. And don't selectively enforce the rule--my use of sources was called dishonest. I'm "grossly" uncivil, yet those who called me dishonest, self-important, vandal, and who hounded me to other articles just to revert me, are not even warned.... The atmosphere on Jesus is so hostile that an editor wrote "GTFO (get the fuck out) bigot", but Newyorkbrad sees no problem there.
-::*This I cannot accept:  "If a user in good standing believes that something is part of your topic ban, then it is part of your topic ban, period." I find no support for it in policy. I was blocked for violating my topic-ban because I discussed an allegedly religious source. The admins haven't even read the source, and in fact my discussion had nothing to do with religion....
-::::There is no concern for the fairness of my treatment here. You aren't getting the facts rights, and your "advice" isn't acknowledging my concerns. [[User:Humanpublic|Humanpublic]] ([[User talk:Humanpublic|talk]]) 04:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Jeppiz ===
-In brief: in the discussion at AN, all admins who commented supported a topic-ban on Humanpublic. Among ordinary users, most supported the topic ban and one was neutral. The only one who opposed it was Humanpublic's pal Strangesad who said AN is a lynch mob [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Humanpublic&diff=prev&oldid=545676804] and urged Humanpublic to create a sock to evade the topic ban [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHumanpublic&diff=546661261&oldid=546644979]. So '''either''' Humanpublic is the victim of gigantic conspiration involving all admins who have looked into his case, '''or''' all the admins who have supported a topic -ban on Humanpublic, several of whom suggested a total block, did so for a reason. While individual diffs can be cherrypicked to support either of the two alternatives, I suggest anyone interested in getting the full picture study the discussion about the topic-ban as well as the edits of Humanpublic after the topic-ban. As for the accusations Humanpublic makes about me, I'd point out that my reverts at [[Jesus]] simply restored what the source said. At [[Argument from Silence]] I actually supported Humanpublic in part, finding the article a bit POV. As is clear from my edit histort, almost all of my edits (luckily) have nothing to do with Humanpublic.[[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 19:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
-*'''Addition''' As the user who proposed the topic ban at AN, I should add that the topic ban is of course not based on Humanpublic's views, but on Humanpublic's repeated disruption when editing topics related to religion. I'm sorry to say that nothing I've seen after the topic ban was put in place suggests any change. On the contrary, Humanpublic has challenged a lot of (previously) uninvolved admins both on their pages and on his own. This recent edit summary in response to a user who had tried to explain Wikipedia's policies is revealing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Humanpublic&diff=prev&oldid=546949980], not to mention this comparison between those who disagree with him and the nazis [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=547267405]. Humanpublic is the viction of nothing but the consequences of his repeated breach of [[WP:CIVIL]].[[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 21:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
-*'''Update''' I see Strangesad has entered the debate and, as usual, says almost nothing about the issue but much more about me. Strangesad is absolutely right, I did warn her for violating NPA. It's good that she apologized some time after insulting an admin that time, but unfortunately it's far more usual that Strangesad insults others and expresses her contempt for people at Wikipedia without apologizing. Concerning Humanpublic's topic ban (which was a unanimous decision among admins), Strangesad's suggestion to Humanpublic was '''"you are the target of religious bigotry, admin powertripping, stereotypes, and hate. Make a sockpuppet and start over."''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Humanpublic&diff=prev&oldid=546661261], and repeated the accusation of '''"powertripping, admin bullshit"''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Humanpublic&diff=next&oldid=546661261]. Several admins noticed it and called on Strangesad to retract the call to create a sock. Strangesad refused to do this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AStrangesad&diff=546990690&oldid=546920655]. Taking into account that I never got engaged or commented on any of these rather serious breaches of Wikipedia policies, nor several other similar remarks from Strangesad [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Humanpublic&diff=prev&oldid=545676804], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Humanpublic&diff=prev&oldid=546173111], I find it slightly ironic that Strangesad accuses me of stalking her. Even more so as only a fraction of my edits concern articles where Strangesad has been involved while the large majority of Strangesad's edits concern articles where I have been involved. The last time I edited any talk page where Strangesad is involved or left a comment for Strangesad was ''00:21, 20 March 2013''. After that, Strangesad has come twice to my personal talk page and now turns up here.<br>
-:Concerning Humanpublic's comments, I note he claims never to have edited the talk page of [[Resurrection of Jesus]]. That is false [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Resurrection_of_Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=541736516]. What is more, Humanpublic was topic banned for his repeated violations of [[WP:CIVIL]] when discussing religion. Here again, I cannot agree with his comment. It's true that I once called one of his edits dishonest (the edit, not him) after he took a source that claims Jesus existed and used it to say the opposite. I'm sorry if that offended him, but I did feel that particular edit was dishonest. On the other hand, Humanpublic has called others dishonest at least 10-20 times, called others "turd", "zealots", "pestering" and a lot of other things. While he and Strangesad continues to claim they are the victims of a Christian conspiracy to silence atheists, the fact is that lots of atheists (myself included) edit Wikipedia without any problems. When someone is repeatedly warned by admins and dismisses it as Christian POV, then topic banned in a decision supported by all admins and dismisses it as Christian POV, and then dismissing ARBCOM as Christian POV [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Strangesad&diff=prev&oldid=547931914], then that user may not be well suited for the project. Last but not least, several admins wanted to see Humanpublic blocked altogether while no admin opposed the topic ban. The topic ban was thus the more lenient option.[[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 10:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
-'''Final comment''' Given that it has been confirmed that this request was made by a sock that has been permanently banned (Humanpublic), I guess the only open question is whether the topic ban is automatically transfered to Minorview, who operated the sock. As topic bans are for persons, not account, I assume that would be the case.[[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 14:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
-=== Statement by History2007 ===
-[[WP:OWB]] is an interesting essay, and per item 3 there, I will be brief. I did not participate in this user's topic ban discussion; but it was a straightforward case of [[WP:NOTHERE]]. This brouhaha is now a case of [[Wikipedia:I just don't like it|user doesn't like his topic ban]]. Given that the account has 47 article edits in 8 months and has been banned and blocked in the process, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Humanpublic&diff=546110270&oldid=546067229 has been frankly advised] about how Wikipedia operates, [[WP:OWB|OWB item 4]] may be a gem as well. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 20:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
-:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Minorview This SPI page] confirms what [[WP:OWB|WP:OWB item 3]] has said for long. The sock puppets get nowhere, but do eat up time. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 13:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Beyond My Ken ===
-Since Humanpublic is under an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=545849175 editing restriction] "Indefinitely banned from making edits related to faith and religion, broadly construed", why is this request even being considered?  Surely this is editing on that topic, broadly construed - and an attempt at a "back door" hit at editors HP disagrees with. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 23:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
-:@King of Hearts: I agree that everyone should have the right to appeal a sanction placed against them, but what Humanpublic has filed here is not that appeal, it's a request to open a case against other editors.  That's more on the order of an attempt at '''''retribution''''' rather than an appeal.  Besides, wouldn't the proper place to appeal a community sanction be to the community, <s>or BASC</s>?  [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 02:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
-=== Statement by John Carter ===
-Humanpublic says above that one of the reasons he's filing this is to appeal his existing topic ban. I guess Humanpublic might not be particularly familiar with ArbCom, but I tend to think that [[WP:ARCA]] would be the appropriate venue to request changes to his existing sanctions. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 00:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
-=== Comment by King of Hearts ===
-Just a quick clarification: @Beyond My Ken: Yes, Humanpublic is allowed to appeal his topic ban. However, @John Carter: ARCA is not the correct place; that is for ArbCom-imposed sanctions only. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 02:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
-=== Opine by Hasteur ===
-Just a suggestion, perhaps the only thing the committee needs to deal with is the question about the topic ban being valid and in need of modification.  If the ban stands, then the rest of the complaint is moot.  If a modification to the ban permits reasonable discussion then the remainder of the complaint can be referred to another DR venue (which would bypass the forum/admin  shopping concerns). Either way, a full case is not needed, simply a motion from the committee once they feel enough statements have been presented regarding the topic ban [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 21:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
-===Statement by Strangesad ===
-I support the contention of bias and unfair treatment in this case. The community discussion to ban resembled a lynch-mob.
-Jeppiz is dishonest and manipulative. An example from my last interaction with him: I left an angry message on an editor's Talk page. I recognized my mistake.  I struck my own comment. I apologized.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floquenbeam&oldid=545512479] Then Jeppiz put a warning about personal attacks on my Talk page, with a diff to my angry comment, and ''completely omitted my apology and self correction''. Jeppiz compiles a set of such misleading warnings, then goes to an admin noticeboard with a complaint, and produces the distorted, out-of-context warnings as diffs in making his case.
-This is what he did in the topic-ban discussion.
-He also exhibited the same wikistalking tendencies. After one of the ANIs mentioned by HP, Jeppiz went to [[Resurrection of Jesus]] and immediately reverted me. He then followed me to [[Resurrection]]; it's nice that he didn't revert me there, but still creepy that, with millions of articles to choose from, he keeps editing ones that I edit. He's manipulative. [[User:Strangesad|Strangesad]] ([[User talk:Strangesad|talk]]) 02:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
-:I just read Brad's comment. It is inappropriate and confused. Inappropriate, because the entire second half is his opinion about a content dispute. Arbitrators should not advance such opinions. Confused, because I'm the main one involved in that particular dispute, not HP. Confused again, because Brad has misrepresented the content dispute. Greek/Roman myth articles do not contain sections discussing their historicity. Their articles call them "myths", whereas the [[Resurrection of Jesus]] article does not label its topic in that way. But, really, why is an '''arbitrator''' arguing about this content dispute in the first place????? [[User:Strangesad|Strangesad]] ([[User talk:Strangesad|talk]]) 02:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
-===Comment===
-Nobody should be automatically presumed guilty of violating a sanction merely by virtue of being accused. King of Hearts is out to to lunch.
-I agree History2007 pushes a Christain POV. [[User:Minorview|Minorview]] ([[User talk:Minorview|talk]]) 14:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
-:It's been made clear that the edit and issue SilkTork raised aren't actually the issue. SilkTork is also arguing about which edit he would favor based on sources, which is a content matter. Arbitrators seem to be having problems with facts and boundaries here. [[User:Minorview|Minorview]] ([[User talk:Minorview|talk]]) 23:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
-===Comment===
-I am neutral on the question of topic bans or blocks except in cases of vandalism, edit warring or extreme personal attacks, but I feel the need to correct some of the conduct related comments here. Both Humanpublic and Strangesad take strong exception to other users "following them around", tracking their contributions and reverting or challenging edits that seem wrong, but according to [[WP:HOUND]] "Many users track other users' edits....Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended."
-Also Humanpublic states above :"History2007, who almost exclusively edits Bible-related articles, frequently misrepresents sources." This is completely wrong, History2007 is a highly active user in many areas who understands [[WP:RS]] very well. Humanpublic, on the other hand, refuses to accept that sources used to support statements he does not like are [[WP:RS]] no matter how many times he is told that they are,see the talk page on [[Jesus]] for many many repetitions of his rejection of New Testament scholar [[Bart Ehrman]] and classical historian [[Michael Grant]] as legitimate sources.
-Minorview states : "I agree History2007 pushes a Christain POV." Not on the pages that I have worked on with him, he does not. He follows WP policy with regard to [[WP:RS]].[[User:Smeat75|Smeat75]] ([[User talk:Smeat75|talk]]) 17:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
-===Initiating editor blocked indef for sockpuppetry===
-See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Minorview]], which basically means this can just be shelved and forgotten. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 00:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
-=== Clerk notes ===
-:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
-=== Jesus: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/9/0/0> ===
-{{anchor|1=Jesus: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>
-*'''Decline''': this seems to me too blunderbuss, too premature, and with too much of the dispute focusing on content, for us to accept. I suggest unpicking the components and raising each separately at the applicable forum. It will be much easier to deal with this in bite sized pieces. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]</sup> 18:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
-**The potential problem with that is that Humanpublic is currently topic-banned, and for him to raise issues on this subject in any other forum would be in breach of the ban. The triage here is probably to first ask whether Humanpublic has a reasonable objection to his topic-ban. If so, we should proceed to consider the request for arbitration, which might include our referring issues to some other venue. If not, we should decline the case which would close the matter, at least unless and until another user without such a restriction raises the issues. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 13:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' - aspects of this may need attention, but arbitration is the wrong venue. Suggest taking Roger's advice. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 23:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
-**Updating to reaffirm my decline. Newyorkbrad's advice is good, please take it. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 08:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
-* Contrary to Roger's position, I actually think this dispute could be appropriately handled in arbitration, albeit with some of the obvious points of disputed content stripped out. However, the dispute as it stands seems to be in a relatively early stage, and too few attempts have been made to use higher levels of community dispute-resolution. DRN, ANI, and RSN (which are for low-level disputes) have already been used, but other methods of dispute resolution have not. At this point, proceeding to formal mediation or an RFC would be more appropriate than proceeding to arbitration. '''Decline''' as premature. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 14:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
-**Same comment as above: Humanpublic is currently barred from proceeding in those forums. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 02:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
-*'''Decline'''. As noted above, Humanpublic is currently topic-banned from edits regarding faith and religion, which obviously would include edits concerning the historicity and reported miracles of Jesus Christ. On a review of Humanpublic's editing and the topic-ban discussion, the topic-ban seems to be necessary. Many of Humanpublic's edits consist of his pointing out, in articles about Biblical topics, that Biblical events such as the resurrection of Jesus are not possible according to science&mdash;thus overlooking that a definition of a miracle in the religious sense is precisely that, an occurrence that is not possible in the everyday world and can only be explained, if it occurred, as an instantiation of the ineffable or divine. Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, as well as respect for the common-sense intelligence of our readers, render it unnecessary to point out the scientific inexplicability of (for example) the resurrection of a human being three days dead every time our coverage of the New Testament mentions the Resurrection. Moreover, for us to realize this does not bias the encyclopedia in favor of a Christian point of view, any more than our failure to interpolate "(but of course this is just a silly story and this couldn't possibly have happened)" into every article about a Greek or Roman myth biases the encyclopedia in favor of an Ancient Greek or Roman point of view. For his failure to understand this and related precepts after multiple explanations, and for repeated instances of grossly uncivil commentary and personal attacks, the topic-ban was properly imposed, after a sufficiently thoughtful discussion on the noticeboard. Nothing that Humanpublic has posted above leads me to believe that the necessity for the topic-ban has ended. Therefore, to the extent the request for arbitration can be taken as an appeal from Humanpublic's topic-ban, my vote is to decline. As for the allegations against other editors, I see little evidence of misconduct, and in any event, being topic-banned Humanpublic is in no position to pursue an arbitration. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 02:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
-**I've noted the suggestions by Humanpublic and Strangesad that I have misinterpreted this situation. I'll take a fresh look at it later today or tonight with their comments in mind, and update or revise if needed. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 07:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
-**I've now had the opportunity to review the editing history in light of the comments from Humanpublic and Strangesad, and I agree with them that I probably overestimated the proportion of Humanpublic's edits that focused on the scientific implausibility of the Resurrection. While Humanpublic had at least one such edit, and his userpage also adverts to the theme, he has a point that Humanpublic has focused to a much greater extent on a different aspect of the situation, namely the historicity of Jesus (i.e. whether the individual commonly known as Jesus Christ existed historically at all); it is another editor who has focused to a much greater extent on the issue I flagged. I withdraw that aspect of my decline reasoning. However, I still perceive no basis for our overturning the community topic-ban on Humanpublic at this stage. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
-**The [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Minorview|checkuser finding that Humanpublic has improperly used multiple accounts]] further supports my vote to decline. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 14:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' per Brad. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 15:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' per Newyorkbrad. '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 15:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
-*'''Decline'''. The topic ban was based on evidence of argumentative behaviour regarding the appropriateness of edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resurrection_of_Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=541734151 this]. The sentence being edit warred over is: "It is impossible that Jesus was resurrected, given that death involves the irreversibile loss of key body functions." There are four cites given, none of which support the sentence. Three support the second half only, and are unrelated to Jesus, while the first refers only to the first half, so the second half of the sentence is original research. The source used to support the first half is [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jVQJda6jCa4C&pg=PA168#v=onepage&q&f=false here] - it is an interesting discussion regarding the concept of the resurrection and looking at the logic of proof and the logic of faith. The closest it comes to supporting the sentence, is this: "Some atheists have said not only that the resurrection did not happen but that it is impossible." A statement extracted out of context in a discussion which is not saying that the resurrection is impossible. Having reviewed much of the evidence and discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive246#Topic_ban_for_Humanpublic here], I see no reason to overturn the topic ban. If the topic ban is validated, there is no legitimacy for the other aspects of this case request. Has Humanpublic been made aware that a topic ban extends to making ArbCom requests? Other than appealing the ban itself, a person on a topic ban is prohibited from initiating or joining in any discussion or dispute resolution process regarding the topic. The wording of the ban is: "Humanpublic is indefinitely banned from making edits related to faith and religion, broadly construed." If, as seems possible, this topic ban appeal is declined, Humanpublic must cease talking about faith and religion anywhere on Wikipedia. Continuance is likely to lead to a site ban. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<font color="#347C2C"><sup>✔Tea time</sup></font>]]''' 16:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' <font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]</font>)</small></sup> 16:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' as moot given Humanpublic's socking. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 17:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)