Paul Siebert has been engaged in a protacted and disruptive discussion at Talk:Pontius Pilate#Recent Changes as well as at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is PhD thesis in Theology a reliable source for the claim about authenticity of Tacitus fragment? to advance the fringe Jesus myth theory. Despite repeatedly being told that he is advancing a fringe theory by everyone else involved and being asked to stop, Paul Siebert continues to WP:STONEWALL and dismiss mainstream scholarship as "Christian" (see e.g. [[8]]). He has now at least twice said he would stop discussing/announced an end to the discussion [9] [10], and yet continues to post making the exact same arguments [11], [12], [13]. He has also already been given a warning by User:Doug Weller, to which he has responded with wikilawyering: [14], [15], [16]. He is currently threatening to rewrite all our Jesus/Christianity related articles on the basis of his own personal POV, as can be seen from the various diffs above. I suspect he will soon be making the same arguments over here as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that he accuses other people of being Christian, and spreading "religious propaganda". To anybody clicking on the links above, there is a huge wall of text, you've been warned (lol). T8612 (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a diff on at least one of the religious propaganda accusations he's made [17].--Ermenrich (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Below are the comments on each accusation separately.

• "Paul Siebert has been engaged in a protacted and disruptive discussion." False. I already proposed to stop this discussion and Ermenrich is aware of that fact. That means no admin action is needed, because the actions are supposed to be preventive not punitive.
• "...as well as at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is PhD thesis in Theology a reliable source for the claim about authenticity of Tacitus fragment?". Is anything wrong with asking a question at RSN???
• "...to advance the fringe Jesus myth theory. The fact that the current version of the article calls it fringe does not make it fringe. I am going to collect more data on that account, and then I'll decide if that article needs a major rewrite.
• "...continues to post making the exact same arguments." That is an important point. Ermenrich claims I am not familiar with sources and my sources are fringe. Ermenrich presented three sources to support that claim. I provided the analysis demonstrating that all those sources fully support what I am saying, and one of them is even citing my source (which refuted Ermenrich's allegation I am using fringe sources). This diff is a summary of the dispute (read ## 1-3). Ermenrich does not respond to this argument and continues the allegations of pushing fringe theories. Obviously, I am expecting to see a response, so it is normal that I am asking it again. I have to say I have never had such a low level talk page discussion during my wikilife.
• "He has also already been given a warning by User:Doug Weller" - I believe User:Doug Weller can voice their opinion themselves if they believe there are still some unresolved problems.
• "wikilawyering" Again, let User:Doug Weller comment on that.
• "He is currently threatening to rewrite all our Jesus/Christianity related articles..." Since Ermenrich seems to have forgotten to attach the diff, here it is. As you can see I express a legitimate concern that some sources may be incorrectly interpreted in Christianity related articles, so I need to read them more closely and make changes if necessary. If that activity is punishable according to our policy, then Wikipedia is not the place I want to be :). Ermenrich's "our Jesus/Christianity related articles" is especially interesting: should I interpret it as a collective ownership claim?
• "... accuses other people of being Christian". Being Christian is not a crime, so I don't see how can it be interpreted as an accusation.
• "religious propaganda" Is Wikipedia a secular encyclopedia, and can religious ideas be presented (as a statement of facts, not as a subject of discussion) outside of the articles specifically devoted to that?

In summary, I think this report is frivolous. I don't insist on WP:BOOMERANG, however, a warning should be issued to Ermenrich.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think many editors would agree that challenging (RS or DUEness) theology studies sources (of any religion - including Christian) being used for sourcing the historicity of religious figures... Is sound editing.Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Icewhiz, The issue is not that he asked, but that it was part his WP:OR strategy to use the Tacitus passage's disputed status to argue that Jesus didn't exist- never providing a source that said that one depended on the other.

in fact, he was challenging its use in the article talk page rather than in the article, on the mistaken impression I was arguing with him about it.Ermenrich (talk)

The source saying that has been provided ... by you. See a statement in bold ("The only source for this event is a brief passage in the historian Tacitus.") --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to it in your first post [18], clearly without knowing what was in it. He's been doing this a lot, I think it probably counts as WP:GASLIGHTING.

Ah, misinterpreted what he said. The source says that the only source for the Neronian persecution of Christians after the Great Fire of Rome is this passage in Tacitus, it says nothing about the existence of Jesus. But that's really neither here nor there. It's a pretty good example of his use of WP:OR though; he's using sources on Tacitus to make his own conclusion that Jesus didn't exist.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Had you answered this my question two days ago, we would probably avoided this incident. I've read your source in full, and I agree that you were right regarding Nero and Christians; however, since you provided this source as a support for the claim about historicity of Jesus, I thought the author was talking both about Christians and Jesus. Anyway, this your source does not support your thesis, because it clearly says Tacitus wrote this passage based on rumors about Christ that already had wide circulation in 110-120. Tacitus was wrong even about Rome fire (which happened in Rome 30 years after Jesus alleged death), and it is highly unlikely he had any first hand account on the events in Judea in 33 AD. However, all of that hardly belongs to ANI.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look who's still not participating in this discussion! As I've said elsewhere, only you were arguing about whether Tacitus supported the historicity of Jesus. I simply quoted the source that you (again [19]) introduced into the discussion for how we should organize the article not to discuss "Christian mythology" to show that it didn't support your opinion and it happened to mention Tacitus.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, this source was initially proposed by me. I think now you realise how important is to explain your point of view: had you pointed at this my mistake earlier, that would save a lot of time. Anyway, two other sources still exist, and they were found not by me. Regarding Tacitus as the only source, listen, it is a common knowledge that Tacitus and Josephus are the two sources the whole concept of historicity of Jesus rests upon. What do your sources tell about other early non-Christian sources? Can you name at least one?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Being Christian is not a crime, so I don't see how can it be interpreted as an accusation."

This is this either demonstrates an incredibly poor understanding of the English language, an attempt at gaslighting or a mockery their fellow editors. Claiming an editor holds a faith which they do not in an attempt to discredit their opinions is incredibly offensive and bad faith, and in that it is an accusation as used as a layman term.★Trekker (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Doesn't holding a faith that Jesus really existed mean being a Christian? I write "faith" because it is based on just two small passages from Josephus and Tacitus, which are widely recognised anachronisms or later additions. No other evidences (if we do not consider the Gospels reliable) prove Jesus existence, so we have absolutely no ground to claim Jesus ever existed. Therefore, everybody who believes Jesus (the God or just a human) really existed is, to some degree, a Christian.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. You have to believe in the divinity of Jesus. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But I think you agree that if the discussion moves to the question on who can be considered Christian, it definitely does not belong to ANI?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not remotly a "maybe". Muslims also belive Jesus existed but not that he was devine.★Trekker (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been vaguely watching this discussion balloon from afar: one note in re Paul Siebert has been engaged in a protacted and disruptive discussion: since his starting the discussion here to the time of my writing here, more than 70,000 bytes have been added to the page by all parties, including by my count 82 edits by Paul Siebert totaling a net +18,286 bytes. A couple of thousand bytes were after the edit Paul points to above as I already proposed to stop this discussion [20]. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that Paul Siebert takes Errmenrich to task for using the phrase "our articles", suggesting that it's a form of ownership, and yet in the same comment uses the phrase "our policy". Clearly he understands the idiomatic use of "our" meaning "Wikipedia's", as he uses it himself! Not impressive. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"A couple of thousand bytes" is a different discussion with another user who claims we have no reason to speak about WP:OWN.

Regarding "our", although I have already been accused of poor understanding of the English language, I believe I can feel a difference between the statement "he is going to change our articles" (which implies some contraposition) and "our (i.e. both yours and mine) policy says..." (which has no such implications).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No there really isn't any difference unless you're really trying to find one very hard to try to justify what you're doing.★Trekker (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I've never edited any of the Jesus articles, historical or otherwise, that's a pretty weak argument.

I'd also like to note that Paul used this same tactic of claiming to have stopped discussing one thing but continuing to argue "about something else" before in the discussion [21].--Ermenrich (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a big difference between you Ermenrich and me. You have reported me and request some action - I do not. And, by the way. I see no problem with stopping one discussion and starting another one: is it really not allowed by our rules? Please, don't make this report even more frivolous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And here you are, continuing to discuss something else again I suppose?--Ermenrich (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any rule that prohibit me to discuss something else?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion has come to a logical end, and I am not going to participate in it unless you present something outstanding (which is hardly possible).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What exacty about this looks like an "end" here?★Trekker (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The end" means there is nothing here that belongs to ANI (except, probably, the fact that the report is frivolous). Good luck. If you have other questions, please, post them on my talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well once again you're wrong. About pretty much everything on topic.★Trekker (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As noted above, Paul Siebert was given a final warning by Doug Weller, and has nonetheless continued with IDHT, bludgeoning, and making bad faith accusations of being "Christian" to editors, which (a) is not really a valid Conflict of Interest if the sources are followed, and (b) is based on poor logic, since the existence of the historical Jesus is generally not controversial amongst historians of any faith. You need to learn to work with your fellow editors, stop trying to insert your own interpretation of sources to get different results from mainstream historians, and also accept consensus, otherwise sanctions will follow.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are inaccurate. Doug Weller explicitly specified his warning was not a final warning. Second, regarding "continued with IDHT", you should have noticed that even before Doug's interference I realised continuation of of the discussion was senseless (at least, until I read more), and I am just commenting on what other people say. Thus, a recent exchange with Ermenrich on this talk page or with Treker are responses to their posts.

Third, calling anyone "Christian" is by no mean accusation, although it may be inaccurate. Regarding "sources are followed", there is a question of due weight: my opponents dismiss my sources (without providing any evidences), whereas I accept their sources, just propose to re-organise the article's structure for a sake of logical consistency.

"stop trying to insert your own interpretation of sources". Our WP:NFCC rules do not allow us to copy large pieces from sources, so we all have to insert our own interpretations. In that sense, I see no difference between me and other users. To blame me in inserting my interpretation of sources is tantamount to blaming me in editing Wikipedia. If my interpretation is wrong, prove it by presenting quotes and arguments.

Again, consensus is not a vote: when people say "you are not right, because the source you are citing is fringe (according to ref X)", or "you are not right because the source actually says Y", I usually accept that. The problem is no such arguments were presented in this discussion.

I am editing a number of highly controversial articles, and I never faced so low level discussion before. Don't you think the problem may be on the other side?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that someone is of a faith they are not to try to diminish their opinin is insulting and an accusation. Stop trying to gaslight.★Trekker (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as I know, Wikipedia is not a politecorrect place, and it is quite ok to make a guess about someone's faith. Per WP:DUCK, if someone's posts look like they were made by a Christian, it is natural to propose this person is a Christian. You may accuse me of insultin someone only if I knew in advance a person was not Christian. Nevertheless, I agree that was impolite; as impolite as calling me fringe theorist or POV-pusher. In future, I will avoid this type rhetoric, and I expect you to avoid yours. Ok?--Paul Siebert (talk)

This is laughable. If you think I'm a Christian you couldn't recognize an actual Christian if it bit you in the ass.★Trekker (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt ANI is a good place for discussing that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. This is exactly the place to bring it up since your constant bad faith assumptions is one of the main reasons no one has sympathy for you. Do you honestly think this is going to lead anywhere but you getting told to knock it off?★Trekker (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, provide a single rational argument. All what you are saying is not possible to discuss, you just say "I don't like your fringe theories", but you never explained why you believe they are fringe. When arguments are so irrational, that creates an impression (ok, a wrong impression) that I am dealing with a deeply indoctrinated religious person. Since you claimed you are not such a person, then behave accordingly: give me rational arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, we have to do a degree of interpretation, in selecting sources, but that's all the more reason why consensus, and following the findings of secondary/tertiary sources rather than primary ones, is so important in maintaining a neutral point of view. Your arguments are not neutral since they go against the mainstream scholarly view that Jesus was a historical figure. And nobody but you is arguing for that point of view. You could conside starting an RFC, or using some of the techniques suggested at WP:Dispute resolution, if you genuinely think there is some aspect of this that a wider audience might interpret different from the other editors in the discussion. But continuing to argue the same point over and over in different venues, and casting aspersions against other users by suggesting they have a faith-based conflict of interest, is an unacceptable way to continue the debate. I have struck the "final" part about Doug's warning, thanks for correcting me on that.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, the whole conflict lasts just a couple of days, so I just have no time to think about RfC or something of that kind. Second, the visibly high number of my opponents is deceptive: actually only few of them presented any addressable arguments. I believe you must agree that "You are totally wrong" or "stop POV-pushing" are not the arguments: usually, I expect to see something more serious. Maybe, my repeating questions were the attempt to force people to present something more concrete? I noticed Ermenrich started to explain their position more clearly (on this page), which is already a progress. I hope that will help us to find an exit from an impasse.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you ignore one of the main issues, which is that each time someone made a claim you disagreed on you simply deflected by claiming that "only Christians think that". Which is bad faith to say the least.★Trekker (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Each time?" Are you sure? In addition, let me remind you that the whole conflict started because you two accused me of pushing fringe theory, despite the fact that I was presenting top quality modern reliable sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There it is again, acting like you don't grasp figurative language. And no, this issue was started because you kept insisting on forcing fringe theories.★Trekker (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, provide a single evidence (a quote from a reliable modern peer-reviewed scholarly source) saying the theory I am advocating is fringe.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are under no more obligation to refute you here than if you claimed the moon landing was fake or the holocaust didn't happen. We've pointed you to sources several times by linking to Historicity of Jesus and Jesus myth theory and you each time simply claim Christian bias and "religious propaganda". Every single person who has commented has said that it is mainstream among historians that Jesus existed.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, this looks like a content dispute. But when I looked more closely, there is something very deeply disruptive going on. Paul Siebert argues that anyone who believes that some guy named Yeshua or something similar was an actual dissident Jewish teacher in and around Nazareth 2000 years ago is a Christian, whether or not they worship him, consider him divine, call him Messiah and Savior, or reject him. Even third generation atheists like *Treker who might possibly believe this guy really lived are actually Christians, in Paul's thinking. Even Jews who denounce him as a false Messiah are actually Christians, if they believe he really lived. All Muslims must be hidden Christians in Paul's analysis. So, Paul espouses a bizarre and highly idiosyncratic definition of who is or isn't a Christian. In order to claim to be "not Christian" in Siebert's worldview, a person must vigorously deny that Jesus ever existed. Siebert also argues that Christian sources are not reliable when when evaluating the historicity of Jesus. By redefining who is a Christian, Siebert's thinking leads to the logical conclusion that only those few fringe sources who vigorously deny that Jesus ever lived are acceptable in these articles. That's a highly disruptive line of thinking when it is advanced so tenaciously and at such great length. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Cullen³²⁸ See my comment below: a reliable source I cite on the talk page directly says that many scholars who study Christ [share similar goals and perspectives with believers. Obviously, the same relates to the users who shares the views of those scholars. Therefore, my allegedly "bizarre" statement almost literally reproduces what a top quality reliable source says, which means it is properly sourced, and completely shatters your main argument. In general, the fact that I can work with sources and I do that very well is well documented: there is a publication in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal saying that the user Paul Siebert uses a very professional approaches to identification of reliable sources. You can read it yourself here.

Furthermore, it seems that as a result of the hot discussion the main idea appeared to be lost: I never proposed to remove any information from the articles about Christ, my proposal was that the non-Christian historical sources should be clearly separated from what the Gospels say (in the same way many books present this information). This quite modest proposal caused such a vehement reaction that I got an impression I am dealing with devoted Christians (and the article cited below reinforced this my belief).

I am not responsible for the ideas that I didn't express someone put in my mouths (to separate different type sources into different sections and to weed out some sources are two totally different ideas, aren't they?), and I expect you to carefully read the discussion in full before posting your opinion. A good analysis is provided by Lurking shadow below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Ermenrich That is absolutely not the case: you are not supposed to refute me, you are supposed to prove you are right. Redirecting me to other Wikipedia articles is a kind of disrespect ("I-am-too-lazy-to-bother-explainng-my-viewpoint-read-it-yourself"). Claiming that the sources I am presenting are fringe is even a worse disrespect, especially taking into account that the sources your own sources cite the article presented by me as a trustworthy and mainstream view. A normal argument should be built like "Your claim is fringe because the author X and the author Y say that. The authors Y&X are renown scholars because their works are widely cited and are published by ZZZ university press..." This type arguments are easy to address (either refute or accept), and I am sure that the discussion organized in this way wouldn't lead to any conflict. That is how discussions on other talk pages are organized, and that is what I expected here. I am very disappointed. Your support of my topic ban is the more disappointing. This does not worries me. I cannot imagine how can a community topic ban a user who made not a singe contoaversial edits to the articles that fall into this topic, and who made no personal attack, and who even had no opportunity to start any RfC or mediation due to the short time that passed since the moment the conflict started. What is worrying me is the fact that people who study Christ seem to approach to Christian with assumptions shared by the believers, and also share similar goals and perspectives with believers. As you can see from this link, this is not my conclusion, this is the opinion published by Sage journal Studies in Religion. That means if you share the view of these scholars than that relates to you yourself. That means, accusations in promotion of Christian propaganda is not a personal attack, it is the conclusion made based on what a top quality reliable source say. It is very sad that a group of users who are currently working on some Christianity related articles share this view. I am afraid by starting this discussion I unadvertely opened a can of worms that may require a global arbitration. However, I am still believing we may come to some consensus that will save our time and efforts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not try to tell me or other editors what we are supposed to do here, Paul Siebert, because I will always do what I believe is best for the encylopedia, and as an administrator and experienced editor, I have concluded that you should no longer be editing these articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You probably noticed the "ec" template: that my comment was directed not to you. I didn't see your post when I was typing. My next comment is the answer to your post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Im replying down here so we dont fracture into so many small threads. Paul, the basis for your proposal at the article is your fringe view that anyone who says Jesus existed is a Christian and therefore too biased to count. No one has agreed with you on either editing the article as you wanted or in your basic premise, but you have simply repeated yourself over and over again. You're doing it even now. As I dont think you will stop, in fact you've said you're going to "examine the sources", no doubt in the same way you've been "examining" them until now, and "decide" whether to rewrite other Jesus articles. Of course I support a topic ban.--Ermenrich (talk)

Absolutely not. My proposal was just to rearrange the article's structure without removal of any content. Regarding my alleged statement about someone's Christianity, as I already explained above, that is just an slight extension of the idea published is a highly reliable mainstream source (the reference is provided above, if you doubt the source is reliable and non-fringe, ask a question at RSN).

Therefore, if you disagree with that, you can direct your objections to the author of this article. Anyway, since the discussion about someone's alleged Christianity was not aimed to lead to any changes in the article's content, I sincerely cannot understand why we are discussing it here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DE?

Since I have been accused of WP:DE, I've re-read that page to verify what is applicable to this case (not only to me). Below is my analysis:

WP:DAPE says that a user is engaged in DE when they

1. "...continues editing an article ..." I haven't edited this article for a very long time. Another party did (which is ok).
2. "... Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research." During the discussion I provided more sources than all other participants taken together. Another party failed to demonstrate that at least one my source is unsatisfactory.
3. "...Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging", etc" Not relevant to me, because I did no changes in the article space.
4. "Does not engage in consensus building:

"a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions..." I responded to virtually all questions (that is why the talk page discussion is that long. Another party did disregard my questions repeatedly.

"b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits." Don't know. Maybe someone can provide an example?

1. "Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment," Since the start of the conflict I initiated an RSN discussion. Another party made a post at Christianity portal, so both parties are ok.
2. "Campaign to drive away productive contributors:" I obviously didn't, and what we have here is an attempt of another party to drive me (a productive contributor) away.

My conclusion is that we are dealing with some elements of DE, but the party engaged in it was not me. I am also grateful to Lurking shadow for a thoughtful analysis of the conflict. It may be helpful in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DE is by no means limited to article space. And you've cherry-picked sentences in the guideline while blatantly ignoring WP:IDHT. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt IDHT is applicable to a discussion that lasted less than a week. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the midst of moving houses and thus can't use my laptop to provide diffs, but its extremely disenguous of you to claim to have provided more sources than anyone else. As you were repeatedly told, the article content you wanted changed was sourced to RS and supported including the crucifixion in Pilate's life. You repeatedly dismissed these sources with accusations of Christian bias or misrepresenting Helen Bond as a theologian. You never produced a single source arguing the crucifixion wasn't a historical event in Pilate's life, you just argued about the off topic issue of whether Tacitus proves Jesus existed - at great length.--Ermenrich (talk)

We both were arguing about Tacitus, and that was not a topic I was going to discuss originally.

Regarding the number of sources, tust count the sources presented by you. I don't remember other participants presented anything significant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was not arguing about Tacitus. I agreed that the section was likely a forgery, and that that was of little weight.★Trekker (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I have a strong feeling that majority of the users who expressed their opinion built it not on what I wrote, but on what others wrote about me. Therefore, let me remind all of you that:

• In a separate post, I explained my position and explicitly wrote that the edits I propose do not imply any source will be removed, just rearranged to bring everything in system. I also specified that I object not to the content itself, but to the way it is presented.. Therefore, it would be correct if P Aculeius provided a diff that supports the claim" "he's not just arguing that the other editors are wrong, but that their opinions, all of the opinions of scholars who disagree with his position, and all of the evidence that weighs against his opinion are wrong, invalid, or inherently biased because they disagree." In addition, the P Aculeius's opinion seems to be based solely on the fact that I am intended to make edits that P Aculeius believes support a fringe position. The only proof that it is fringe is some WP article says, and, since Wikipedia is not a source for itself, this opinion is not supported. Simply, P Aculeius supports topic ban just because they do not like my viewpoint (without providing any sources or similar evidences). I am also disappointed that Amakuru finds this frivolous rationale convincing.
• I would like to see a diff that proves the Cullen³²⁸'s assertion about my "bizarre opinion that anyone who concludes that Jesus was a historical figure is therefore themself a Christian". I suggested to stop "Christian propaganda", and this my statement was based on what high quality peer-reviewed source says: it says that the researchers writing about Christ share similar goals and perspectives with believers, and, again, that is not my assertion, that is a published fact. It is quite possible to spread (intentionally or non-intentionally) a Christian propaganda without being a Christian, which means the claim that everybody who disagrees with me is Christian does not follow from my words. That means Cullen's conclusion follows not from the words I wrote in reality, but from the interpretation of my words made by others.

In summary, I suggest everyone to make their conclusions based on the words I wrote, not on the interpretations made by others.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably stop repeating the same arguments that you're right here. This is not the place to relitigate whether or not the Jesus myth theory is fringe. Prior consensus clearly establishes that it is. You still can't drop the stick.--Ermenrich (talk)

"Prior consensus clearly establishes that it is" Please read WP:Consensus can change what to do and what not to do when there was prior consensus.Lurking shadow (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ermenrich, it seems you are not reading the posts you are commenting on: where did I mention Jesus myth theory in this thread? I would say it is you who are constantly returning to this subject. Regarding the "stick", my position has modified during the discussion, yours has not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The more I am reading the thread below the more I am asking myself: are my opponents reading my posts, or they are discussing some other Paul Siebert?

★Trekker's A, B & C sounds totally bizarre: one cannot request a ban for refusal to recognize historicity of Jesus. Whereas I, along with Lurking shadow, totally agree with B and C, your B and C have no relation to me: I never called anybody "Christian", as I explained in this section, I accused people of spreading Christian propaganda, which is absolutely not the same. That wording may be awkward, but that is essentially what a reliable source I presented says: "many scholars who study Christ share similar goals and perspectives with believers". If you stick with what those scholars say you (inadvertently) share these goals and perspectives too, and that does not necessarily mean you are Christian. Therefore, taking into account that many people on this page uncritically reproduces this false accusation, I expect you ★Trekker to explicitly withdraw it, for I am not responsible for the words I never said. You should either provide a diff where I call anybody a Christian, or withdraw your B & C and apologize.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about this [22]? I think it's clear from reading the thread that this is a conduct dispute that got heated, but that post is just gross. How are you supposed to read that as anything but accusing him of being a Christian (as if that would somehow negate his viewpoint)? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

::What exactly do you find incorrect in that statement? I was accused of ignoring the arguments presented by others, and I responded that the person who throws this accusation ignores my own arguments despite my repeated requests to address them. What is wrong with that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for an example of you calling someone a Christian. I think Can you remind me which of your beloved Gospels says "Physician, heal thyself"? is pretty clear-cut. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was addressing to a person who was vehemently advocating historicity of Jesus and the Gospels. Does it mean I called them Christian? If that is the case, than the statement a person X loves pasta immediately implies they are a Pastafarian.:-). Please, provide something more serious.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've seen enough. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just said I "do not" want for you to be banned or blocked. Why are you questioning if I read your comments when you're clearly not reading mine very well? I ask of you the minimum, to accept that your theory is simply considered a fringe theory among the majority of experts and can thus not be treated as anything but a fringe theory, and for you to stop assuming bad faith of people who don't agree with you on the topic. I don't want you to be banned even if you refuse to do those things, but I will think less of you as an editor if you can't conside that you have been wrong in accsing almost everyone who disagreed with you of being Christians.★Trekker (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I got confused: your B and C related to calling someone Christian, not to some fringe theory. Obviously, my words "your beloved Gospels", similar to "your beloved War and Piece" only imply you are a proponent of some idea (in this concrete case, the idea of historicity of the events described in the Gospels). That is why your accusations were absolutely groundless: when I say someone is spreading Christian propaganda or when I say "your beloved Gospels" that doesn't imply I am making a hypothesis about the faith.

Regarding that ostensibly fringe theory, as I already explained, I am going to read more on that, because I suspect the article misinterprets some sources, and some other sources are missing. If this my hypothesis is correct, I will edit it. However, since I don't know if I am right, I cannot tell in advance if I am going to do that.

By the way, my procedure of identification of reliable sources is transparent and neutral. I am saying that because a reliable source exists that says so about a user Paul Siebert (me). Therefore, everyone will see how I am finding sources, and in the case if someones believes my sources are fringe or cherry-picked, that will be easy to check and fix.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no one has questioned whether you've made valuable contributions to other areas of the encyclopedia. But if you start advocating a fringe theory (and of course there is a tiny minority of scholars on the fringe who support it), you'll be being disruptive.--Ermenrich (talk)

You failed to demonstrate the theory was fringe. The only evidence was a Wikipedia article. Currently, I DO NOT KNOW if this theory is fringe, because I haven't read all sources I am planning to. It may be fringe and may be not, however, this discussion has no relevance to the original thread. Please stop driving the discussion in a wrong direction.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you think this is about?--Ermenrich (talk)

Frankly, I consider this report stupid and frivolous, and I do not understand what it is about. Incivility? I think majority of the commenters do not think so. A length of a discussion? It is not that long as many other discussions I was participating in. Disruptive editing? I have done zero questionable edits. Pushing fringe views? Again, zero sources have been provided to demonstrate this view is fringe (the relevant WP article should be closely examined in terms of fact checking, accuracy and neutrality). What else? I don't know. Your frivolous report have distracted many fruitful users - for what? I don't know. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I currently count 7 editors in favor of a topic ban of some kind based on your pushing of fringe views. I suggest you rethink your strategy.--Ermenrich (talk)

I suggest you to be more accurate in your statements. Only a fraction of them cite fringe pushing as a reason. Majority of others seem to have come to their conclusion based on the false accusations thrown against me. In the unlikely case if a situation will develop in an unvaforable way, it will be easy to demonstrate, with diffs, that most of what I ostensibly wrote was written not by me.

In addition, you seem to mix consensus with vote. Legitimate concern of those who oppose has not be addressed, so there is clearly no consensus about any actions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop playing dumber than you are. You know very well you were implying over and over that I must be a Christian because I agree with the overwhelming majority of historians.★Trekker (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to Lurking shadow below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am still under an impression the subject of this discussion is not my humble person but someone else. Thus, P Aculeius writes "He just needs to refrain from disruptive editing in the article space, for instance by deleting or dismissing valid sources and opinions based solely on his own interpretations of the evidence, or by giving undue weight to what is, essentially, a crackpot theory that's been rejected by virtually all mainstream scholarship for the last century. " Well, whereas I totally agree with that, why P Aculeius forgot to add "he should also stop beating his wife"? I made ZERO changes in the article space, I removed NO sources or content (it was my initial intention to restore the old article's version, but I clearly explained few hours after that that I meant restoring old structure, not removal old content). I also clearly explained, even before the ANI report was filed, that I am intended to read more before I make a decision about changing the Christianity related articles. P Aculeius, you are acting in a good faith, thank you, but your are discussing hypothetical actions that I may (in your opinion) take in future as if I already did that in the past. That is highly misleading. Even I myself have not decided yet what exactly I am going to do. By the way, in general, it is not my habit to remove sources when rearrangement of the content or addition of new sources may solve a problem. The question if some theory is really fringe is not a subject of this discussion. The Wikipedia article says it is, however, Wikipedia is not a source for itself. I can tell you honestly, I myself don't know if mainstream sources say it is fringe (originally I thought the view that Jesus was a historical figure are fringe, but now I see a situation is more complex), and I am certain nearly 100% of participants of this dispute do not know it either: they just read what the article says. I am going to read more on that subject, and, depending on the result, I either will edit this article or leave it as it is, and my peers have no right to prohibit me to do that without knowing what these edits will be.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, in English, refrain from means "avoid", not "stop". If you read my replies carefully, you'd notice I never accused you of having edited the article disruptively; that's why I withdrew my support for the proposed topic ban, as suggested by another editor. I said that all you really needed to do to avoid a topic ban was to refrain from disruptive editing—since the changes you were proposing to make appeared potentially disruptive to all of the other editors who weighed in. As long as you have no intention of editing articles disruptively, this ANI can be resolved in your favour. The ball is in your court; the rest of us will be in the gym, doing our Pilates. P Aculeius (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you must agree that when I am saying "He should refrain from beating his wife", that implies there is some non-zero possibility he may do that. I was not going to edit the article disruptively, and there is no evidences that I ever did that. I made clear what exactly I was going to do, and what I am not, and I am a little bit offended people are seriously discussing a possibility I can do something I never planned to.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you should have written this?

In that linked contribution to the discussion you say:"Indeed, only a religious Christian can believe Pilates was responsible for execution of Jesus, because other people know there were no Jesus. "

By using logic that means that you assert(there, in that sentence) that all people who believe Pilates was responsible for the execution of Jesus are Christians. Maybe it was spoken in the heat of the moment, but the concerns of these people do not come from thin air.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, you are right. Frankly, when I started that discussion, I sincerely thought no reasonable scholar believes in historicity of Jesus, because the Tacitus passage is either forgery or hearsay (when he was writing that Christianity had already been popular, and that myth had wide circulation), and the Josephus fragment is later addition. However, during this discussion I realized many serious (in all other aspects) authors believe in this bullshit (note, I do have POV, and I concede that). However, since a significant number of sources that are considered RS by Wikipedia say so I came to a conclusion that many authors or WP users may share this view without being religious Christians. As you already noted before, my viewpoint may evolve when I face new facts and reasonable arguments. Therefore, by the moment I was writing about "Christian propaganda" (next day) I was keeping in mind that some author/user may share this view on Jesus without being a religious Christian (which is a big surprise for me).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's partly the point. But part of the point is that some people in that discussion might be atheists who believe that Pilates was responsible for the execution of Jesus and might have been quite displeased to be called Christians.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what the source presented by me says: many scholars who study Christ share the views of believers (although they remain atheists in other aspects). Interestingly, the same source says those who study Mohammad are less affected by that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But your argumentation is "All people who think X are Y" Those who aren't Y at all and but think X might feel personally attacked by that statement, even if it was not your intention.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I already explained that was my point of view on 29th July. It has changed in light of what I learned.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not since you keep peddling that stuff bellow.★Trekker (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

★Trekker, I will be honest with you. Until the end of July 2019 I believed the idea that historical Jesus ever existed looked as a flat Earth theory to me. I was surprised to learn it is not a fringe theory. I still got no evidences that the opposite theory (a.k.a. Jesus myth theory) is fringe, however, I was surprised to learn that many scholars writing about Christ are still sharing some idea with believers. Since a direct google scholar search gives a lot of references to various religious and theological writings, my analysis of what view is majority, minority or fringe has not been finished yet, however, my preliminary conclusion is that the theory that you call "Jesus myth theory" is by no means fringe.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Paul Siebert, are you not allowed to reply to me down bellow where I actually leave my comments? Because it's going to be rather hard to follow this conversation if you just add your comments above with a ping to me.

As for your thoughts on what is and isn't fringe, you're clearly so biased that nothing you say can be taken seriously in my opinion, so what if you don't think that it's that fringe, I have 0 faith in you being able to judge something like this objectivly. Maybe it isn't as fringe as majority of historians think/act like, but I'm sure not going to trust you to teach me about that. Also, you're honestly going to claim you never once encountered the idea that Jesus was an actual person and this was accepted among many? What? Were you raised on some anti-intellectual Maoist commune? Did you not receive some history lessons during your education? I was raised in Sweden, possibly the most atheist country in the world, with parents and grandparents who never believe in God as long as I was alive, yet in my history lessons and talks with relatives it always seemed clear everyone knew Jesus life was based on actual historical events.★Trekker (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, but I find it more convenient to discuss everything here.

Regarding my alleged bias, you also look biased to me. Moreover, I believed the views you are sharing are totally fringe (I mean is not shared by a scientific community), and only after I started to search sources I realized that is not the case.

Usually, when I start working on some new topic I am using the same simple trick: I call this game "a ignorant Wikipedian". This game is as follows. Suppose you know nothing about Reichstag fire and what to know what is the mainstream view on that subject. You go to google scholar (not google) and type something neutral. Something like this. The top 20-40 sources that are well cited usually give you an rough impression what majority sources say. Then I examine the sources that cite these sources, and so on. Suppose some other Wikipedian disagrees with my choice of sources. In that case they may propose their own search results, using a different keywords, but I can always say "hey, you are using not neutral search string!". If another party uses neutral keuwords, we usually find similar sets of sources.

The problem with this particular topic is that 99% of sources I found so far are either indoctrinated religious writings or some articles published in obscure journals (nothing in common with America Historical review or similar good journals). Therefore, I still haven't got a ultimate answer for myself on how exactly I am going to edit Christianity related articles.

You arguments about allegedly fringe nature of the JMT look absolutely non-convincing. Actually, you provided ZERO arguments; now I realize that happened because you believed any reasonable person is supposed to share your views. Unfortunately, to me, the opposite was obvious: any educated and rationally thinking person was supposed to share MY views. Now I realize the actual situation is more complex, however, I still haven't come to a final conclusion what is a majority view of scholarly community on that subject. One way or the another, I don't think this discussion should belong to this page. I will be glad to continue it later on some other page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe next time you should do some proper research first before 1. demand other editors justify the current state of a Wikipedia article, 2. you talk about rewriting an article / undoing major changes, and 3. you come up with theories like "people who believe that Pilates was responsible for the execution of Jesus are Christians". Robby.is.on (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Actually, a neutral search according to the above described procedure provides the sources that confirms my early claims. Thus, one of the articles that appears among the top 10 results ("Pagan origins of the Christ myth") says "The myths and legends concerning such pagan christs as Osiris, Horus, Adonis, Krishna, etc., were later interpolated into the biography of Jesus", and insists the Christ myth (sic!) has a pagan origin. That means any other person doing a neutral search would find the same information. I admit, this neutral search also provide sources that support Tracker's view. Thus, the first source, "Shattering the Christ Myth" by James Patrick Holding says (page xii): "Jesus Christ theorists are amateurs to whom professional scholars pay little attention. And finally, Jesus really was God (as opposed to being defied after he died)." I am not sure if the author was serious, however, if he was, that kind of a proof is actually a perfect demonstration of my point: that those who are trying to debunk Jesus Myth theory are actually spreading Christian propaganda. Note, I just asked GoogleScholar, picked randomly two sources from the top of the list, and one of them says that Christ is a mythological chararacter of pagan origin, another says that those who believe Christ never existed are amateurs and Christ is a God. Do we need more evidences that I was right, that I am not pushing fringe theories and my opponents are spreading Christian propaganda? I admit my conclusion may be premature, however, that is the conclusion any neutral person would come to had they typed "christ myth theory" in google scholar and take first two relevant sources (the first four were not available for me).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much I can take this anymore. Every single thing you spout out is an arrogant deflection and projection of your own issues. You clearly have an innate dislike of Christianity, Christians, anything that is related to Christianity and anyone who doesn't share your views on Christianity and it's history. I am not biased on this topic, I have no reason to be, I hold history of Jesus and his legacy no higher than I do other historical figures (as a matter of fact I hold people like Alexander, Caesar and Augustus in far higher regard than him). Even when I personally disagree with the majority opinions of historians I can at least accept that I am indeed in the minority. For example, I don't go around and and demand Wikipedia claim the Iliad is more factual of the Bronze age than most historians think, even if I do hold that opinion.

The simple fact is that the JMT is a fringe theory and that has been the accepted consensus on it for as long as I can remember! All you have done is arogantly barge in and claim me and other people are spreading "religious propaganda" and are secret "Christians". When called out on this you simply try to gaslight and claim "well being a Christian is not a crime so how can it be an accusation?!!!" and "oh if I said you loved pasta you woulnd't be upset!!!!".★Trekker (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, although the question of my attitude to religion is my private business, I can tell you that I am an agnostic, which means I separate religion and knowledge. I am perfectly ok when the article is written solely based on Christian and theological sources, but I am totally oppose to the idea to mix science and religion.

Regarding JMT, read my response to Robby.is.on: I decided to play my "ignorant Wikipedian" game, and the result is as follows: a totally neutral person with ZERO preliminary knowledge about JMT will find two sources, one of them says Jesus myth has pagan origin, and another says JMT is fringe AND Jesus was God (sic!). I believe you must agree that the first conclusion this person will come to will be that the opponents of JMT are religious Christians. I by no means endorse this conclusion, but it looks natural, doesn't it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you seem to care about religious beliefs being ones "private business" all of a sudden. You had no issue calling me and others Christians and ignoring that I insisted I was an atheist. Also, history as a field of knowlege is not generally considered a "science".★Trekker (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I expected you to answer to the major point of my post, because the results of my search looks pretty unexpected and interesting even for me. Unfortunately, you seem to be more interested in continuing the quarrel (I will be happy if this my conclusion is wrong). Actually, under "private business" I meant that my own attitude to Christianity and religion in general does not matter. However, I am not making a secret from it, and I am telling you I am agnostic (not atheist), which means my attitude is neutral. Moreover, I think Christianity had a very positive impact on the development of science. And, again, I already explained to you what I meant under "religious propaganda". If you want my frank opinion, all story around "religious propaganda" is very simple: since admins do not like to go in details of content disputes, so the best way to win it is to convert it to the conduct issue. You are free to decide if such a behaviou is honest.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am tired of trying to educate you. 2. My main issue is and has always been that you insult your fellow editors by assuming bad faith, that's why two of my requests (wherein I said I did not wish a ban or block on you) were about you learning to not do that again, but you have not even begun to realize that you have done anything wrong. 3. I don't really belive a word you say anymore, you do not seem like an honest person at all in how you have comunicated so far.★Trekker (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

★Trekker, Actually you request me to concede I called you Christian and apologize. The problem is that I didn't call you Christian, I said you are spreading Christian propaganda. I already explained (on the talk page) what does it mean, and let me do that again:

In some sense, we all, you, I, other users are Christians: we accepted some concepts, we observe Christmas and sometimes Easter, we all know Gospel stories, etc. We may be religious or not, but to some degree we all reproducing, partially, Christian narrative which is a part of our culture. However, one thing is to tell a story about Christ to our children, and another thing is to add them to serious history articles. That is what I meant under "Cristian propaganda". Have I been clear enough this time?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop already, it's getting embarrassing. Do you honestly think anyone is going to buy this drivel? Or are you honestly so arrogant that you believe your own lies? Christian means one thing and one thing only, to accept Jesus as the savior.

Also easter is originally a Jewish tradition and my family only celebrate Pagan/secular holidays amongst ourselves, such as Midsommar, Valborg/May Day, Jul and Lucia. I only observe "Christmas" with fellow Wikipedia's the same way I would "observe" Eid for my Muslim friends in real life.★Trekker (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind you that our civilisation is called Christian civilisation despite the fact that only a part of the Western world are religious Christians. Please, allow others to use this terminology at their own discretion.

Regarding Jewish Easter etc, each of us only partially observe Christian holidays (I myself do not observe them at all), however, emotionally Jesus is much closer to me than Mohammad or Buddha.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. My home is not called a "Christian civiliasion", that's not a word I've ever seen used to describe my culture, Sweden is a secular nation and has been for a long time. So no, I'm not going to be fine with you labeling me a "Christian", especially since you've clearly used this technique to try to mock me and diminish my opinion. You can call yourself that if you so feel like it, (not that I belive for a second you would do it for any other reason than to try to misdirect over how you used it to insult me and others).

I also find it very disturbing that you seem to refer to something as "ours" here, I have no idea exactly where you're from but if you're implying something is "ours" just because both of us are European that does not appeal to me in the slightest. I feel no kinship with other people just because they happen to have also been born on the same continent. I don't think I have a lot in common with you.★Trekker (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you find ironical that you, who accuse me of a negative attitude towards Christianity, deny the fact that our civilization is still Christian, whereas I defend this view? What about Protestant ethic as a significant social-economy factor? Anyway, these minuscul details are hardly relevant to this talk page.

I am living in the West, and our common home (Sweden is a part of the Western world, isn't it?) is traditionally called "Christian civilization". Modern leftists trends are gradually changing this situation, but I stick with more traditional views, and, despite I am agnostic and former atheist, Christianity is still emotionally closer to me than Islam or Buddhism. And it was normal to assume was even more applicable to you as soon as you were defending an odd (in my opinion) idea that Jesus really existed. Indeed, taking into account your position on Jesus, it was quite natural to assume that. Retrospectively, I understand that I shouldn't have to make this statement, but I couldn't know that in advance, and I already explained that to you. However, if that does not resolve the problem, that somewhat shakes my belief in your good faith, for it looks like you are just looking for a pretext for pretending you are feeling offended. I sincerely believe I err.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop gaslighting for the 1000th time, every single thing you've done wrong you're trying to peddle off on me.★Trekker (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

am I doing that by saying I was not right????--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're now implying that I'm prejudiced towards Christians, some thing which I've clealy expressed that I feel you are. And accepting partial guilt while simultaneously saying that "oh you're just pretending to be insulted by my insults" is gaslighting yes. You want to on the one hand act like you accept you were in the wrong, while still feeling justified in how you acted. That is not genuine. ★Trekker (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remember what I wrote about my English? I probably didn't convey my thought adequately: I said I realize retrospectively I was not right, but by the moment I wrote that I had no reason to think I was not right. If you do not accept that as an apology, then you are just pretending you were insulted, and your actual emotions are different. I will be glad if I err.

Ok, ★Trekker, if that will make your life easier, and to save our time and page space, I formally apologize. As I already posted below, I will be absent during next two weeks, so I will not see your responce. I hope it will be peaceful. :-) --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "err" is. Also, demanding people accept apologies on your terms is not very something which I think seems very genuine once again. I would love to be able to see your apology as completly sincere, (because I do belive based on what other people have said here that you have done great things for Wikipedia as an editor and I stand by that I don't want you banned in any way, and I really hate to be on bad terms with any other editors), but I also can't really claim I find you to be a particularly honest or pleasant person. But in the end I guess you can never truly know what people hold in their minds, so I will assume good faith here and take it you do realize it was poor judgement which lead you to say those things. Have a nice vacation.★Trekker (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant in the room: CIR

Now that My very best wishes brought it up below [23], [24], I think it's time to address the broader issue of WP:CIR and what Paul Siebert's net purpose and contributions to Wikipedia are. Aside from posting literally hundreds of thousands of bytes across multiple pages promulgating the WP:FRINGE theory of the non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth, Paul Siebert has engaged in similar if not worse behavior on other Wikipedia pages: [25]. In nine years he made 3,301 posts to Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes (he made only 195 to the article itself), driving good editors like My very best wishes away. He made 1,760 posts on Talk:World War II (making only 352 edits to the article itself). In less than 1.5 years he made 920 posts on Talk:Communist terrorism [26] (making only 84 edits on the article itself). He has made more than 100 posts to at least 18 article talkpages on Wikipedia, usually running into the several hundreds per talkpage: [27]. His pie-chart is an extremely lopsided 64% article-talk and 15% article: [28]. My observation is that Paul Siebert's purpose on Wikipedia appears to be to expatiate at exporbitant, unheeding, and extremely repetitive length on article-talk pages. He does not adequately seem to be here for collaborative purposes or to built an encyclopedia, and he seems broadly to lack the competence to participate in collaboratively building an encyclopedia. It seems at this point, and this current massive fringe-pushing is a case in point, that his presence on Wikipedia is likely too disruptive (we already know he is dominating conversations and driving good editors away) for him to continue. Softlavender (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding FRINGE, in the previous section, I just presented the results of my neutral search aimed to figure out if the claim the JMT is fringe. I agree that it is probably quite possible to find sources that support your view ... if you want to prove your already existing viewpoint. But what happens when a person who knows nothing about JMT wants to learn about it?

First, this person goes to google scholar (or jstor, or isi Thompson-Reuter, or Scopus, but NOT is google). Why? If you are competent, you will explain me that.

Second. This person types some neutral phrase ("Jesus myth theory", as I did, but not "Jesus myth theory fringe/debunked/refuted").

Third, this person reads sources that appear on the top of the list and are cited by others. I did that, and everybody can repeat this procedure to see I was not cherry-picking. And what Ii found? One of the first source says JMT is rejected by serious scholars AND Jesus was God (sic!). What conclusion a neutral person will come to? I think the answer is obvious. Another source says Jesus is a mythological character, and he was produced after pagan myths about "Osiris, Horus, Adonis, Krishna, etc., were later interpolated into the biography of Jesus."

I believe everybody will agree that the logical conclusion this person will come to is pretty obvious, and that will be NOT the conclusion will not be in favour of your viewpoint. Currently, I am not advocating this conclusion, because I am at the very beginning of the process of sources analysis, however, it is obvious that there is some ground to believe your claims are questionable at least.

Finally, I am among few Wikipedians (if not the only one) who is known to work with sources very professionally. That fact has been published in a reliable source which is easy to find. This source[29] says Paul Siebert constructs himself as a model informationsearcher (according to his user page he has a PhD so this is perhaps not so surprising).He claims no biases, uses the information technology of choice for Wikipedia editors(Google Scholar) and applies the criteria of peer-review as a means to filter potentialinformation sources. And the sources he finds I think would be viewed by the majority of librarians or scholars as decent enough....

Again, that is an opinion about me published in the source that meets all top reliablility secondary sources criteria. That means you are expected to present something more serious that your baseless allegations, for outstanding claims require outstanding evidences. And all of that cast a serious doubt on your own competence.

Regarding my posts on other talk pages, believe you or not World War II is a very high level article, it is being read by nearly 100,000 persons every day, so we, the users who are working on this article do that very cautiously, and discuss every change on the talk page first. However, if you find this habit non-productive or disruptive, you may directly ask JoshRamirez29, User:Jack90s15, Jack Upland, Nick-D, Volunteer Marek, this and others about that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, as soon as you mentioned Mass Killings... article, if you can do anything but counting the number of edits (I sincerely believe you can), you should have probably noticed that the article was under severe edit restrictions for several years, and after that was fully protected during 6 years or so. Each new edit was supposed to be supported by consensus, and only after some admin implemented it. It is not a surprise that to put just a couple of words in teh article users had to type thousands words on the talk page. The fact that you overlooked this circumstance does not add credibility to your assertions in general.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever in my years on this site seen an editor with such a high opinion on themselves. Fine, you seem to have some reason to have a high opinion of yourself, that doesn't change that you have been increddibly rude and assumed bad faith during the majority of this whole ordeal. If you can't actually act in compliance with Wikipedia's demands you shouldn't be here. We don't need editors who scare away other good editors. No matter how good you are you're not infallible, which you act like you are, (clearly you're not very good with ancient history). How about take some of the criticism so far to heart and maybe better yourself?★Trekker (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trekker, be logical: when someone throws a bizarre accusation of my incompetence, the best way is to respond in the same exaggerated way. The same source that I already cited says that sometimes Wikipedia breaks standard criteria of competence, but does not replace them with equally good new rules. The first thing Wikipedia needs is a good content: it is the world's most important informational resource, not your hobby. Regarding "we dpn't need editors who scare away other good editors", if you are really good, it is not easy to scare you, because your arguments are strong, and your statements are hard to refute.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia is most definitely my hobby. I'm not going to break my back bending over to please you and your delusions of grandeur. I'm not obligated (nor is anyone else) to do a single thing but abide by Wikipedia's guidlines when I edit, I edit for fun, not some obligation towards the world, if I got bored with Wikipedia tomorrow I would quit without a second thought. This is a volunteer effort, not some job we get rewarded for, if you scare of people they're not going to be automatically replaced because the "position" is vacant, doesn't matter how good you supposedly are at citing if no one wants to work with you. People aren't scared of your opinons or sources, they're scared of your forceful, rude, arogant, manipulative and disingenuous personality. Also, none of the accusations so far have been remotely "bizarre", you acted like a di*k and refused to consider other peoples positions as anything but "biased Christians", now you're here and people are telling you exactly that.★Trekker (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Yes, it is a hobby for both of us. Obviously, what I meant that the primary goal of Wikipedia is not to be your hobby.

And I neither expect nor want anybody to bend over. My post was an answer to a blatantly incompetent accusation in incompetence.

Treker, believe me, the only situation I am pleased is when my arguments are addressed using even stronger arguments. I love convincing people I am right, and I equally love when someone convinces me I am wrong. However, by convincing I mean not "You are obviously not right, XXX people say you that", but "You are not right, because there is a logical flaw in this your argument, and the source Y was misinterpreted by you." THAT type of arguments I gladly accept, and I that is what I call "to show respect".

By the way, you probably noticed from my habit to put "the" totally arbitrarily that English is not my mother tong (one friend of mine even told be he can easily that resognise a document was written by my compatriots based on very specific mistakes we do when we place "a" and "the"). Therefore, I am not surprised some nuances of my English may create a wrong impression of rudeness or arrogance. However, that is just a wrong impression. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No Siebert, I do not belive that the "impression of rudeness" comes from minor slipups in English writing. I don't belive you're bad at English at all, I think on the other hand that you use the fact that English is not your first language to feign ignorance.★Trekker (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I thought my English writing skills were more poor. Actually, I meant not grammar, but cultural aspects. In my native country we are more direct, which creates a wrong impression of rudeness. And, in addition, where is your own assumption of good faith? I told you I had no intention to insult others, I told you I have an impression I sometimes am not feeling some nuances that may insult others - then point my attention at that. As a rule, when that is explained to me I am trying to avoid this tyupe wording.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My good faith assumptions towards you kinda died after the third time I asked you to acknowledge that accusing people of being Christians to diminish their opinions is not cool and very unfounded.★Trekker (talk) 04:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I say that it was not the most wise statement I made during that discussion, will it resolve a situation?

Let me also note that your repeating posts "you are obviously wrong, just admit it" were really annoying and they insulted my brain, for I usually expect such claims to be supplemented with some real arguments. I consider that behaviou deeply insulting, so, please, admit we both were not right in that dispute.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised your brain felt insulted, you seem like the type who can't comprehend when someone doesn't bend over and accept everything you say. And no, I'm not giving in to your poor bargening here, "well agree we were both in the wrong", that would be disengenous on my part becuse that would mean I feel we were anything near equally guilty. We are not. You barged in to a subject demanding stuff be done and having a long time plan for several other pages without having even a good grasp on the subject at all and then proceded to make a complete fool of yourself by insulting people left and right when they had a different opinion. This is once again an attempt at gaslighting by moving the guilt on to someone else. No sympathy.★Trekker (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have access to that article, but finding sources that are "decent enough" in an article whose abstract says Wikipedians deal "shallowly" with sources and dont invest much time in them feels like fairly light praise. Also note the paper says "Paul Siebert constructs himself as a model informationsearcher" not that you are one. That's not to say you didn't do a good job at the Vietnam article, but I don't think your mention in that paper amounts to much based on what I've seen.

Just as an example of some questionable source practices you're displaying now: You neglected to mention that the paper that supports the Jesus myth theory you found is from the 60s, and the pro paper is clearly not representative. I suspect you dismiss any journal with "biblical" in its title, am I wrong?--Ermenrich (talk)

this link should work. Let me know if you were able to download it. In a case if it is not working, here are some quotes:

" It is Paul Siebert, champion of the more traditional information routine, who digs deeper into the sources than anyone else,using contextual knowledge to argue against the inclusion of RAND reports (this particular report was not highly cited in Google Scholar and RAND itself, being heavily obligated to the US Government, cannot be considered an unbiased agent). He also appears to have actually read the Moise article and provides an outline of the argument showing that it does not rely uncritically on Communist Party newspapers. He also qualifies Porter’s errors regarding the Khmer Rouge, noting that little information wascoming out of Cambodia at the time and hence many were fooled..."

"the history of the substitution of these three sources for the others generally agreedon through the RSN is an interesting one–the switch was made on 19 February 2013,only a month or so after the RSN debate. The comment accompanying the change wasmerely:“Use original sources”. This time there was no Paul Siebert to intervene and thechange remains up to the time of writing."

And he wrote not just "decent enough", but "viewed by the majority of librarians or scholars as decent enough....".

Frankly, I don't like to cite this article, I have to do that because people accuse me of incompetence.

Actually, what is more interesting in this article is the concept of Pfister’s destabilisation: "Wikipedia destabilizes familiar information routines, that is, changes the criteria we use to judge expertise, albeit, I would argue, without replacing them with much that could be construed as progressive". I think we are having here exactly the same situation: you are claiming I am incompetent without setting good competence criteria. Actually, the only reason you guys claim you are competent is that you achieved a consensus among themselves. I do not claim this is a bad criterion, but I doubt it is good either.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've just noticed two good question you asked. Here are my answers:

• "You neglected to mention that the paper that supports the Jesus myth theory you found is from the 60s, and the pro paper is clearly not representative." That is why I am using a totally transparent procedure: you got an opportunity to put forward this argument. Here are the results of another search that includes only the 2015-19 period. The first article I has access to is this. I had no time to read it, but it discusses Buddha and Christ myths, and the author seems to be a proponent of JMT.
• "If I I suspect you dismiss any journal with "biblical" in its title, am I wrong?" It depends. If the journal is published by Pergamon, Springer, Whiley, Cambridge University press, SAGE and similar publishers, the journals are quite ok. If they are listed in ISI Thompsom-Reuter, can be found in jstor, that is a sign the journals are good. The above paper seems to be published in a journal of some society of Brazilian scholars, so it is ok too. I don't know yet about other journals that publish Christianity related papers, let's think together.

In addition, I think the word "biblical" or something of that kind is not a kind of a stop sign that immediately disqualifies such a journal, however, when some journal published papers that seriously discuss Christ's miracles, or contains statements about divinity of Christs (similar to what Ii presented above), that immediately makes impossible to use sich publications as sources in the WP articles in the same section with the content obtained from scholarly journals. I expect you agree with that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the ping above, I'd confirm that Paul's high number of edits to Talk:World War II is due to the conventions regarding this very high profile article, where significant proposed changes are discussed before being made, sometimes in great detail. Using this as a stick to hit Paul with suggests a total lack of research - it actually demonstrates that he's making a valuable contribution to the article. I've worked with Paul for years on that article, and while we don't always agree I greatly respect the constructive way he conducts himself in discussions (I'm both the second-most prolific contributor to discussions at Talk:World War II and the second-most prolific editor of the article BTW - I hope this isn't a sign that I'm disruptive!). Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• At this point, I would support a ban from Wikipedia. It seems to me that he tries to disgust active members from contributing by swarming them under massive walls of text and deliberately misinterpreting other editors' arguments, shifting goalposts, etc., but only on the talk pages. I have to say he is very talented at doing this, and that it is a very clever way to maliciously influence Wikipedia without being spotted, since he barely contributes to the articles—some members have even defended him on this very fact here. T8612 (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't agree with that at all. Paul makes a great contribution to articles on World War II, and engages very constructively in talk page discussions. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he makes good edits on WWII, but if you read the actual topics discussed, you'll see that his contributions are considered disruptive, to say the least. T8612 (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From above and below, I don't find this at all convincing. It really does look like a "closed shop" using exaggerated complaints to try to force someone out of the topic space they're guarding. The false claims about Paul's editing in fields I'm familiar with which are being used to beef up the complaints regarding his editing on topics related to whether Jesus existed actually dramatically undermine these complaints to my mind. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know and I dont really care whether Paul makes good edits on WW2. But his behavior at Talk:Pontius Pilate was atrocious and I think hes likely to do it again. Even if the Jesus myth theory IS just minority and not fringe, hes very clearly POV pushing and refusing to engage in either intelligent debate or accept consensus.--Ermenrich (talk)

I don't know if this is related, but in this edit, he used the Twinkle ROLLBACK (vandal) tool on an IP user that isn't vandalism. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 07:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the case, than that was definitely wrong. Probably, just hit a wrong button. In general, I use it very infrequently.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Topic ban

Since 29 July 2019 Paul Siebert has thus far made 82 posts totalling 47,000 bytes to Talk:Pontius Pilate, in a single thread [30]. No one has supported his proposals or arguments, and they have been objected to by eight editors: Ermenrich, *Treker, Urg writer, Ltwin, P Aculeius, T8612, Andrew Dalby, and Johnbod. He has been asked to desist (due to clear lack of consensus) by uninvolved editors including Furius and William Avery, and has been asked to either desist or create an RFC by uninvolved editor Softlavender. He was also formally warned on his usertalk [31] by Doug Weller. Nevertheless he has continued to voluminously argue with others, even in the face of repeated warnings that this would go to ANI if he persisted.

In the face of this endless WP:DE and WP:TE, I propose one or both of the following Topic bans:

1. Topic ban on Pontius Pilate.

2. Topic ban on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed.

-- Softlavender (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic bans on both Pontius Pilate and on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed, as proposer. Enough is enough, and Paul Siebert will continue his crusade onto other articles if he is banned only from the Pontius Pilate article. Softlavender (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topics bans on both Pontius Pilate and on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed. The discussion above gives me no hope that Paul Siebert has learned anything from this experience so far, and I think if he does not receive these topic bans now he'll just disrupt the project more on other Jesus/Christianity related articles in the future, as he indeed has said he intends to do. (This is only my second time at ANI, so I apologize if I'm not supposed to vote as the person who brought the complaint).--Ermenrich (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topics bans on both Pontius Pilate and on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed. I explained my thinking in detail in the section above. In brief, Paul Siebert's bizarre opinion that anyone who concludes that Jesus was a historical figure is therefore themself a Christian is so illogical that it disqualifies this editor to work in this topic area. Ermenrich, you are fine. You are welcome to express your considered judgment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban on Christianity broadly construed which should be understood to include any Biblical as well as other notable figures in Christian history Their tendentious WP:PROFRINGE editing and WP:IDHT behavior in this discussion is enough for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose There are some things that lead me to believe that there is more than one problem. We should not act with great haste on this complicated situation:

Just a bit more than 10 minutes after Paul Siebert started the discussion Emenrich started to inform the Christianity portals: [32] Shortly after that Ermenrich described good faith editing as vandalism. Also, there is a general pile-on by people from the Portal. This is a problematic edit by Paul Siebert, because it says that "Indeed, only a religious Christian can believe Pilates was responsible for execution of Jesus, because other people know there were no Jesus." which is a sweeping generalization indicative of a strong POV. A similar edit comes a bit later:[33]. The next problematic edit comes from *Treker, who insists that "no one is going to support your idea", a phrase easily used to stifle legitimate discussion. This makes clear that a source used is unreliable(That's not problematic, indeed, that's progress). [34] A source of unknown reliablilty, can someone else research that? Here we have a significant number of sources cited, by Paul Siebert. I don't have enough time to research if they are fringe sources or not... Another batch of sources? Also, something that looks like an attempt to come forward... This is a good point bringing the discussion forward... and then we have this post. Siebert argues moderately, and even changes their viewpoint(!) a bit. And he is correct in that the other side of the discussion failed to provide an adequate number of reliable sources to that point! Contrast this with the the next contribution. This is the point where Softlavender comes in and argues that there is clearly a consensus against Paul Siebert's opinion, a viewpoint that my analysis does not support. There are more people on the other side, but less sources provided in the discussion. They also assert that the discussion is becoming disruptive because of the number of bytes, but that's simply a bad idea to say, as long as there is progress. The next person comes in and asserts that there is something wrong with one editor arguing against multiple editors; saying this just after that person moved their viewpoint a bit in that direction cannot be a good idea. I suggest that these advocating a ban look at the next link: [35] The frustration and the reasoning there are totally sound to have.

TL;DR:Paul Siebert is making long, sourced arguments against a number of editors giving little sources; is indeed contrary to the assertions taking the others into account, including changing their opinion. On the other hand, the other editors do not directly provide sources, with one or two exceptions, and demand to be seen as consensus because they have the numbers. Lurking shadow (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. He's still clearly editing against WP:CONSENSUS, and repeatedly engaging in WP:DE and WP:TE. No one out of 12 editors (some of them completely uninvolved) agreed with him. Wikipedia operates by WP:CONSENSUS, not by who posts the most or the longest or lists the most sources. Softlavender (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's extremely wrong. He isn't editing against consensus, he is arguing something trying to get to a consensus. These arguments have been opposed by other editors without much good reasoning as no consensus from very early on in this discussion. That they changed their views on the subject a bit already is also definitely not a sign of tendentious editing, at least not a sign of continued tendentious editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurking shadow (talk • contribs) 05:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's tendentiously and disruptively editing against a very clear consensus and repeated requests to drop the stick. Perhaps you don't know these things, having made less than 300 edits on Wikipedia [36], but you already have a topic ban of your own [37], so maybe you're not the best commenter on this subject. Softlavender (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give me some diffs of tendentious editing? Or disruptive editing? Can you please tell me why the debate is supposed to have reached its natural end by having only circular arguments anymore? I see a bit of circular discussion. But mainly in the middle of the debate. I also see, however, a break into new arguments and into a new viewpoint near the end of the debate, shortly before you came in.Lurking shadow (talk) 05:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter how long or "sourced" your arguments are if what you're saying is still nonsense.★Trekker (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban on Christianity broadly construed as phrased by Ad Orientem above. I have had no involvement with the editor (that I can recall) and have not been involved in the articles, but wading through the discussions including the one right here makes it very clear that this is tendentious and disruptive editing that has taken up a lot of time from other editors. --bonadea contributions talk 07:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban on Christianity broadly construed which should be understood to include any Biblical as well as other notable figures in Christian history (ie per Ad Orientem). My advice and warning clearly didn't work and he doesn't seem able to drop the stick. I also note that he said that I was an involved editor on the basis that in April 2015 I reverted an era style change and then later in the thread on his talk page that I was involved because of the discussion on his talk page. Admin involvement doesn't work that way. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban as construed by Ad Orientem. [see below] Not being an administrator, I think this may be the first time I've weighed in on ANI, and I don't take this position lightly. I know how it feels to be certain that you're right, even when everyone else in the room disagrees. But I also know when to drop the stick, and Mr. Siebert doesn't seem to; indeed, he's not just arguing that the other editors are wrong, but that their opinions, all of the opinions of scholars who disagree with his position, and all of the evidence that weighs against his opinion are wrong, invalid, or inherently biased because they disagree. Based on the tone of the discussion and his own statements, I'm concerned that he'll try to implement what I consider, and what Wikipedia's own article on the topic of the Jesus myth theory says is a fringe position, potentially on numerous articles. I note from his talk page that he seems to have been a productive editor in other fields in the past; and I'm not questioning his claims of good faith, but as established in the "disruptive editing" topic, good faith isn't a defense against DE. So at least for now a topic ban seems to be the right solution. P Aculeius (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban as construed by Ad Orientem. - P Aculeius talks a lot of sense, and this seems to be the best remedy, given that Siebert is not hearing the multiple voices telling them that they have pursued this too far.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose topic ban. This seems to be almost entirely confined to a single overly-wordy section on one page and a single relatively brief WP:RSN request; that falls far short of anything that could be reasonably called disruption on its own. When people talk about WP:IDHT on talk pages, it tends to mean much more extreme stuff than this - stuff that requires people clean it up, like starting countless redundant discussions on multiple venues, not just being intransigent in one discussion, confined (mostly) to a single section. WP:IDHT in particular talks about sanctions only in the context of Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed, which is clearly talking about actions and about more actively disruptive talk page editing (things that have to be "cleaned up", WP:BOLD actions that are actually reckless, etc), not merely intransigence in a single talk page section - a topic ban shouldn't be used for "jesus, why won't he shut up?" How have things been disrupted for anyone who just stays out of that one discussion section after dropping their opinion there a single time? All else aside, I'm not seeing why the people in dispute with him can't just... ignore him? They're capable of WP:DROPTHESTICK as well, since plainly he lacks consensus to actually implement his changes and (at least, I assume, based on the fact that those diffs would obviously be the key part of discussion if this weren't true) shows no inclination to actually try and implement his proposed changes against consensus. Sometimes the solution is just to stop talking - nobody is forced to "clean up" his talk page comments; once it's clear he lacks consensus (and once they've dropped their opinion in once to make that clear), they're free to wander off. I'm also not seeing any evidence above that the editor has actually been a problem in this topic area outside of this one dispute, which is, again, confined to one section and one small WP:RSN request (people imply he'd just wander off to another page, but... that's something you have to show from his edit history.) What this looks like is a bunch of people on all sides refusing to back down and stop arguing with each other long after debate has reached a natural conclusion. But the article-content thing seems settled, so nobody has to actually keep arguing this - no one is forced to spend time replying to him - and, conversely, that means that Siebert's comments are hard to really qualify as disruption, especially since (by my reading) this is all essentially confined to one talk page section on a single article. If Siebert were starting new discussions over and over or across countless different venues, sure, that would be disruptive, but in this case nothing seems to stop anyone else involved from saying "we've said our piece, it's clear consensus is against you for now, bye." Also, finally - it seems like nobody has even attempted an WP:RFC, which is the obvious dispute-resolution step when someone refuses to accept that they've reached a consensus. Leaping to WP:ANI to demand a topic-ban over refusal to accept a consensus, without even taking that first obvious step to shut down this sort of protracted discussion, seems to me to be extremely premature. I'm not saying an RFC is necessary given the lopsided discussions - I think people could just stop replying to Siebert, as I said above, since he's shown no actual inclination to put his edits into effect once it was clear how many people opposed them - but if they want this decisively resolved, that would be the obvious step, not a topic ban. People accuse Seibert of ignoring suggestions to create an RFC, but it's unclear why (if they feel discussions are going in circles or are no longer productive, or if they think there's a clear consensus that Siebert is refusing to accept) they couldn't just create that RFC themselves. For that matter, nobody has tried hatting the discussion or, well, anything beyond just arguing in circle and then leaping straight to ANI) - Siebert reverting attempts to hat the discussion, for instance, would be more convincing WP:IDHT than "he won't stop talking in this one section and we, for some reason, are unable to resist replying." Am I missing something here? The support for a topic ban, above, seems absurd - yes, it's possible to require one just from WP:IDHT on talk; no, this doesn't seem anywhere remotely close to a point where it could be legitimately considered, let alone actively supported. We have countless methods to resolve situations like this before reaching for sanctions. --Aquillion (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • An 800-word wall-of-text poll !vote? No wonder you don't understand the problem. It's nonstop endless posts like this that disrupt the project with endless distraction. Not replying to someone who threatens to disrupt other articles if he fails to get his way (or to revert to his desired version if people do not meet his demands) is not an option. It is up to the person who clearly does not have consensus to stop their disruption, especially when asked repeatedly by both involved and uninvolved editors and even administrators and when told repeatedly that more disruption will result in ANI and probably a topic ban. Ignoring those simple and clear requests and protocols is not only the essence of WP:DE and WP:TE, it is also the essence of WP:CIR, and the fact that the editor is continuing their nonsensical campaign on this ANI thread is more evidence that there is a fairly serious WP:CIR problem that may come up again even with the topic ban in place. Softlavender (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • He made one comment (his initial post at the start of the section) suggesting a change to the article - entirely reasonable given that nobody had weighed in yet to establish consensus and the initial rewrite was WP:BOLD - and one other comment suggesting a related broader change which was clearly shot down. In neither case did he suggest he would push those issues once it was clear he lacked consensus; characterizing him as someone who threatens to disrupt other articles based on that is torturous to the point of bordering on a personal attack. Anyone is going to look bad when they have eight people arguing against him, and obviously he should have shut up long ago, but continuing a single centralized discussion, on a single talk page, when nobody has made any effort to resolve the discussion beyond repeatedly replying to him, is obviously not disruptive. (Again, nobody has attempted even the bare minimum of hatting it, marking it as resolved, or one of the numerous methods available to shut down discussions that are going nowhere.) And, honestly, you are not helping your case by immediately accusing the second oppose !vote of being disruptive; obviously I'm going to be wordy when it seems like so many experienced editors are missing multiple vital aspects of this discussion. WP:IDHT, WP:DE, WP:TE and WP:CIR are not tools to resolve disputes, they're there to resolve actual disruption - things that require time and effort for editors to repair, not just discussions that you can't personally resist wasting time on. "I want Paul Siebert (and Aquillion and Lurking Shadow, I suppose now) to shut up" isn't disruption. --Aquillion (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can see a bit of tendentious arguing, initially. But this link, especially "Moreover, I realized I was partially wrong, and in reality a part of scholars still believe the Tacitus passage about Christ is authentic (although many of them conclude he just reproduced a story told by some early Christian). For me, that is a new information, and I am glad I found it." does not look like a stubborn WP:IDHT editor that edits to further some bias. Rather, it looks like an editor who does have some initial bias and has assumed things about sourcing wrongly but is able to re-assess that based on what others said. They have heard it. Just not right away. Lurking shadow (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except that hes actually still wrong and arguing about something completely extraneous to the matter at hand.
        • Also, I'd like to note that I was very publicly sharing my draft on the article's talk page. Paul Siebert could have easily commented before instead of simply threatening to undo everything.--Ermenrich (talk)
          • That they are wrong is your opinion. Did you back up your reasoning that it is a fringe theory by directly naming sources that say it is actually a fringe theory? Did you back it up by directly naming all the established sources and pointing out that the vast majority of them reject that theory? WP:TE goes both ways - a theory isn't fringe just because you believe so or because a Wikipedia article currently says so(Wikipedia articles are not a WP:RS).Lurking shadow (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is not unusual that people only realize that there is something they disagree with happening to an article when you actually edit that article.Lurking shadow (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, I and other editors pointed to the sources cited in the article, all of which assume the historicity of Jesus as non controversial. Paul Siebert simply dismissed those RS and started using their own logic to disprove Jesus.--Ermenrich (talk)

• Support Pontius TBAN, Oppose Broader TBAN - I feel the reasoning made is sufficient to prove both disruptive and quite possibly CIR issues. However, while I certainly recognise the risks of the tendentious editing (though on talk pages) moving to related themes, I am disinclined to make such a broad TBAN until required. The fact that they aren't causing article-editing disruption means the editor isn't out of control. I strongly considered opposing the TBAN entirely, but I felt that a reasonable case had been made. I don't know if the editor will improve, but there is certainly more chance than with others we've seen. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: that's a good point, why don't we wait and see if Mr. Siebert actually begins removing valid sources without adequate reasons, or inappropriately inserts Jesus Myth theory into articles? Obviously the theory exists and can be mentioned in appropriate places and with the proper tone—although as it's a fringe theory it could easily be given undue weight if added to every potentially relevant article. But it's hard to judge instances without seeing the proposed additions, which in any case could be edited collaboratively if necessary. So calming down and waiting to see what happens before implementing a topic ban seems eminently sensible. As Aquillion says, it's not disruptive editing unless it actually occurs in the article, and can't be adequately dealt with by the usual means (such as trimming or rewording). P Aculeius (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think he either gets tban'd now or it will happen later. I dont think he'll be able to write productively on these subjects.--Ermenrich (talk)

You're probably right, but a topic ban at this point would amount to what we might call "prior restraint", i.e. an administrative sanction for something that hasn't happened yet. So far, he's only argued that he ought to revise/revert/rewrite a group of topics to reflect a certain viewpoint. While imposing a topic ban would prevent him from doing so, it would also prevent him from making legitimate edits, and go on his record, so it's not entirely harmless. And unlike the types of harm against which you might seek an injunction, anything he does can be revised or reverted if necessary, leaving no lasting harm. And that would be the time to consider imposing a topic ban. P Aculeius (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All I honestly want is A) for him to accept that the current majority opinion among modern historians is that Jesus existed, B) for him to stop acting like accusing other people of being Christian is not an attempt at diminishing their opinions on this topic, and C) realize that not everyone how belives Jesus existed is a Christian or even religious for that matter. I do not ask for a topic ban or even a block.★Trekker (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B and C are definitely requests I can endorse based on what I have read. I will not expect them accepting A at all unless you can actually back up that it is the current majority opinion with reliable sources that say that it is the majority opinion(and even if it is - not every theory opposing the majority opinion is a fringe theory); and with backing up I mean linking these sources and explaining how they back your statements, not merely proclaiming their existance.Lurking shadow (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he doesn't really need to accept anything. He just needs to refrain from disruptive editing in the article space, for instance by deleting or dismissing valid sources and opinions based solely on his own interpretations of the evidence, or by giving undue weight to what is, essentially, a crackpot theory that's been rejected by virtually all mainstream scholarship for the last century. We don't have to prove to him that he's wrong, as long as he doesn't use Wikipedia as a platform to prove that he's right. There are, incidentally, plenty of historical sources cited in the Pilate article and the Jesus Myth theory article that support the basic premise currently in dispute: namely, that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual person who lived in Judaea, was put to death by crucifiction during the governorship of Pontius Pilate, and whose followers ascribed to him the attributes, deeds, and teachings that subsequently formed the basis of Christianity. History says nothing about his divinity or any supposed miracles performed by him; only what his contemporaries and subsequent generations said about him. The scholars already cited for the proposition that Jesus Myth theory is not a mainstream view clearly indicate that the theory is discredited: 1) because it requires the rejection of all of the evidence indicating that Jesus was an actual person, including the opinions of writers who were not Christian or even hostile to Christianity; and 2) it requires the assumption that rather than simply embellishing and mythologizing stories about an actual person, the early Christians simply invented a person who never existed in order to justify their religion worshiping him—and got away with it, since nobody until modern times, including the Romans themselves, seems to have doubted that there was such a person! But I digress. Opinions are like cows: everybody has one, and Mr. Siebert's entitled to his. We don't have to change it, as long as he doesn't use Wikipedia as a platform to share it. P Aculeius (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Nosebagbear and P Aculeius, Paul Siebert has stated several times and in several places that he is going to take his "Jesus-did-not-exist" campaign to a variety of other Wikipedia articles. I realize that this may be hard to discern amidst the huge mountain of verbiage he has generated both here and on article-talk and on usertalk pages, but that is a fact, and that is the continued disruption that the topic ban(s) are attempting to prevent. We don't have the manpower to babysit him and see whether he carries out those plans or not. Hence the broader topic ban. Softlavender (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Topic Ban on historicity of Jesus, or whatever is necessary. Stuff like this [38] is excessive. Their failure to acknowledge how problematic their behavior is, and the continued denial of any problem, indicates that the disruption will continue until this editor is removed from the topic area. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Canvassing by Ermenrich I just looked at the message Ermenrich wrote at these two portals they mentioned, the message that was responsible for the initial batch of people coming in and it is a clear-cut case of canvassing:[39]; [40]. Lurking shadow (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] I did not learn of this discussion through those messages, and came to this conversation entirely on my own. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] I don't doubt that, because my accusations of canvassing relate to the discussion that spawned this ANI thread, not to this thread itself.Lurking shadow (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] How is that canvassing, anyway? As opposed to an attempt at getting some outside input from related Wikiprojects? El_C 06:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Because it is a clearly biased message? Them contacting these wikiprojects in a neutral manner would not have been a problem.Lurking shadow (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict):Lurking shadow, as far as I know, posting at project pages is not considered canvassing, although Ermenrich was supposed to use more neutral wording. By the way, now I started to partially understand the reason for such an inadequate reaction: for some reason, he concluded I was going to remove all content added by him, whereas I wanted just to re-arrange it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] The messages report a dispute over an attempt to undo editing that was based on and cited to reliable sources, and they were posted on WikiProject talkpages, the standard venue for such notices. This is not canvassing. Plus one of the WikiProjects had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity, so no one viewing that notice had any disposition towards a Christian perspective. Neither of the notices were about this ANI thread. Lurking shadow, whatever you're trying to do, and for whatever reason, it's not helping Paul Siebert -- it's making him look worse. Softlavender (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Did you read the notice Softlavender? The location of the notice is not the problem, it is the content of that notice - it is obviously and extremely biased towards the wishes of its author.Lurking shadow (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] I read the notices. The messages report a dispute over an attempt to undo editing that was based on and cited to reliable sources, and ask neutrally for help. This is not canvassing; this is getting outside opinions from relevant WikiProjects. Lurking shadow, whatever you're trying to do, and for whatever reason, it is not helping Paul Siebert and your posts are becoming repetitive and disruptive. I wouldn't be surprised if your sections get collapsed. Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] "... and ask neutrally for help". What? Neutrally? How is this a neutral message? A neutral message does not include the preferences of its author. . It does not describe an opposing view as a threat. It definitely does not contain a plea for help against an opposing view!Lurking shadow (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] The message did not describe the "opposing view" as "a threat"; in fact, it did not mention an "opposing view", but rather accurately stated that "Paul Seibert is threatening to undo the extensive rewrite I have just performed", which is exactly what Paul Siebert said he would do: "I am going to revert all recent changes and restore the old article structure." -- Softlavender (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] A much more neutral message would look like this in this case: A rewrite of Pontius Pilate is currently under discussion. One of the arguments against the rewrite is as follows: "We should never mix Pilates as a real historical figure with Pilates as he was described in Gospels Otherwise, we have to admit Gospels are historical documents, and Jesus was a real person, not a Christian mythology character." One of the arguments for the rewrite is as follows:"The Christ myth theory is a minority opinion. All the reliable sources I have used describe Jesus as a historical person." Your contributions would be welcome. That would still not be perfect, but I wouldn't complain about it.Lurking shadow (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Lurking shadow, that was not the issue at hand. The issue at hand, which Ermenrich accurately summarized, was that Paul Siebert was about to immediately and unilaterally completely revert the RS-citation-based rewrite of the article that Ermenrich had just completed. You made an inaccurate accusation of canvassing, and were disproved, even by Paul Siebert himself. Now please stop before you yourself are reported for disruptive and tendentious editing, and possibly blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Let's just agree to disagree on canvassing here - although I agree that the threat of reversal could have been included.Lurking shadow (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Like Aquillion, I'm squeamish about singling someone out for a ban because of a long and tedious, but civil, talk page discussion. Haukur (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haukur, Paul Siebert has stated several times and in several places that he is going to take his "Jesus-did-not-exist" campaign to a variety of other Wikipedia articles. I realize that this may be hard to discern amidst the huge mountain of verbiage he has generated both here and on article-talk and on usertalk pages, but that is a fact, and that is the continued disruption that the topic ban(s) are attempting to prevent. Softlavender (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban on Christianity. The view that historical Jesus never existed is indeed FRINGE/small minority view. Paul tells "Until the end of July 2019 I believed the idea that historical Jesus ever existed looked as a flat Earth theory to me..."). But why Paul believes in this? Because this is one of many key ideas promoted by the Soviet propaganda. And I think Paul does the same on all pages, including subjects related to Eastern Europe, i.e. he promotes various pro-Soviet biases on all pages. I tried to work with him, but could not. I end up avoiding any pages that he edits and submitting this request at WP:AE, without any result. Please see my comments in discussions below. My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Premature, though Paul should back off, take a deep breath, study the relevant sources, and come back with a concrete and concise proposal. I will also note that having looked at some of sources allegedly supporting the labelling of the Christ myth hyopethesis as a "fringe theory" (bandied about here, on RSN, and on the article talk page) - I am entirely unconvinced as the sources, per my reading, do not use that language (they do support the notion that full out myth is a minority position, but minority does not mean WP:FRINGE).Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Icewhiz, at the risk of being off topic, have you looked at Talk:Historicity of Jesus/FAQ? Particularly the list of books makes it clear there aren't any actual scholars in the field who support the myth theory.--Ermenrich (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reviewed the citations themselves - they support this is a distinct minority position - however they do no go as far as calling this a "fringe theory" - which is a very strong assertion which we should not be using unless strong sources spell this out as "fringe", "conspiracy", etc. Icewhiz (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about this source here [41]? Quote: "Given the fringe status of these theories, the vast majority have remained unnoticed and unaddressed within scholarly circles." (p. 312).--Ermenrich (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't have access to it at the moment (probably will in a few days on a different computer) - need to see context, however that seems to be a response to Richard Carrier's writings (and such responses can be heated also within academia) - and - I would say that the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus is perhaps not the most neutral venue here. That being said - this particular source is better than the ones I've reviewed in Christ myth theory in that the quote you provide does use "fringe". I definitely agree that current consensus is that there was probably (a qualification used for many ancient figures) a historical Jesus of some (varying) sort. I just think that if we are to "fringe theory" label this in articles lead (a-la Moon landing conspiracy theories) - we need strong sources asserting fringe/conspiracy status. Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As an additional comment, I want to say that there has been a refusal to hear from the other side as well. A refusal that is definitely partly responsible for this escalation. When Paul Siebert asked for sources, they got "the sources are in the article", when indeed some sources had been present before the rewrite(this much is evident from the history of the article) and there was zero effort in showing that the sources actually supported their arguments. While Paul Siebert did discuss a good number of sources they linked the rest of the editors did not link a single source to support their argument during the entire discussion!.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to be 100% honest here. To someone with even a little bit of knowledge of Roman history the idea of denying Jesus historicity is the equivalent of "flat earthing" that's why no one bothered to do more than direct him to the general overview of the subject with all the sources he would need did he bothered to read it with an open mind. Why should we feel obligated to educte a stonewall on something so clearly universally acepted when all the sources are already there for him to look trought? Heck, a google search should have been enough, but no, he insisted on pestering people and insulting them. He can't even take responsibility over his bad faith, still pretending that he didn't mean anything by "your beloved gospels".★Trekker (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lurking shadow -- Yes, they did. They repeatedly linked to entire Wikipedia articles full of reliable source citations. There is no need to provide individual refuting sources for a fairly preposterous WP:FRINGE belief, when nearly the entire body of scholarship already refutes it. And editors know better than to fan the flames of nonsensical debate by offering only one or two sources and thus continuing the already massive and unnecessary discussion ad infinitum. Softlavender (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topics bans on both Pontius Pilate and on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed. He does not understand how consensus works, but to me the most annoying things about him is that he deliberately misrepresents other editors' arguments. Initially, I was only for a limited ban, but after seeing @My very best wishes: post above, I think it is better to entirely remove him from these topics, just to shield other editors from his huge stonewalls. T8612 (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. You should check involvement of Paul at Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes. That's a killing of [time of] wikipedia contributors. I left it for good. My very best wishes (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read it yet, but allow me to make a "wild guess" My very best wishes, Mr. Siebert is perhaps a bit of a communism apologist maybe?★Trekker (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this user pushes pro-Soviet propaganda/views on all pages, from Gulag and Gas van to Jesus Christ. He is probably the most relentless "civil POV-pusher" I have seen in the project. You think he will be topic banned? Think again. You should be happy that Christianity is not the major area of his interest. My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, 331 edits to Talk:Gulag, 563 edits to Talk:Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact, 3302 to Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes. It is unbelievable. T8612 (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. However, the problem is not only the number of edits, but POV-pushing. OK, these subjects are big and complicated. Let's take a small a simple page, like Gas van, see discussion here. I argue that a book by Yevgenia Albats and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick, KGB: The State Within a State. should be used as a scholarly book that tells something exactly on the subject, along with other sources. This should be simple, right? Wrong. An extremely long discussion follows, after which I am leaving this page to never edit it again, simply because I am tired (see also this part: Paul fight with every author who does not fit his POV, even a Nober Prize winner; the discussion includes some Russian texts; Paul is a native speaker, just like me). The "winner" happily removes the reference to the book, along with direct quotation from the book [42], and he does it with false/misleading edit summary (no, the book by Albats does NOT "cite the same tabloid paper"). That is what Paul do on many pages. That was the reason for my WP:AE report [43]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Paul Siebert's most recent comments ("Until the end of July 2019 I believed the idea that historical Jesus ever existed looked as a flat Earth theory to me. I was surprised to learn it is not a fringe theory. I still got no evidences that the opposite theory (a.k.a. Jesus myth theory) is fringe, however, I was surprised to learn that many scholars writing about Christ are still sharing some idea with believers. Since a direct google scholar search gives a lot of references to various religious and theological writings, my analysis of what view is majority, minority or fringe has not been finished yet, however, my preliminary conclusion is that the theory that you call "Jesus myth theory" is by no means fringe.", "I still haven't got a ultimate answer for myself on how exactly I am going to edit Christianity related articles." etc.) suggest he is still in the midst of acquainting himself with the content he so fervently contended. It seems he needs he needs to learn from this episode that he should do proper research before 1. demanding other editors justify the current state of a Wikipedia article, 2. talking about rewriting an article / undoing major changes, and 3. coming up with theories like "people who believe that Pilates was responsible for the execution of Jesus are Christians". Robby.is.on (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – I'm persuaded by Aquillion's arguments, particularly that a topic ban shouldn't be used for "jesus, why won't he shut up?" It takes multiple editors to create a talk page wall of text. If editors don't want to engage with him, they can just ... not engage with him. If he makes a terrible proposal on a talk page, !vote oppose, state your reasons, and be done with it. There's little need for back-and-forth unless you want to engage in back-and-forth; but no one is forced to do that. – Levivich 05:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was pretty clearly threatening to impose his fringe stuff on tons of articles. How exactly are people supposed to stop him by not engaging him?★Trekker (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suppose PS makes an edit someone disagrees with. It can be reverted. If PS reinstates it without consensus, that would be edit warring and could be reported to ANEW. Suppose PS doesn't edit war and instead posts a proposal on the talk page to gain consensus for the challenged edit. Editors who disagree can !vote oppose. One post from each editor, !voting oppose with their reasons, is all that would be needed. Suppose PS responds to those !votes with counterarguments. Editors can ignore those responses if they wish. If the proposal is widely opposed and nobody engages in extended back-and-forth, there will be no mainspace edits without consensus and no talk page walls of text. Problem solved? – Levivich 06:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • He couldn't accept it when everyone told him he was wrong on Pontius Pilate's talkpage, he can't even be honest about how he treats people and consensus on this very page. How can we assume it would be any better in any other discussion on the topic? I'm not demanding he be banned, but I want people to come with better reasonsings that "well the complaints are just that he's annoying", because him being annoying is only about 50% of the overall problem.★Trekker (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Although I prefer to respond in a separate section, this time I respond here for sake of my peers convenience. ★Trekker, those responses were de facto not responses at all, because they didn't cite any sources and provided almost zero rationale. To see the example of a real response, look at this. That is a type of arguments I was expecting to see. Had Ermenrich responded in this way from the very beginning, there would be no conflict at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • He didn't respond that way originally because what you were propossing was utterly laughable.★Trekker (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:IDHT, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIR, WP:PROFRINGE, and other such policies and guidelines. If someone is continually disrupting a talkpage(s) against consensus, and/or threatening to take their WP:FRINGE promotion to all other related articles, and/or threatening to unilaterally revert to their preferred version of an article if people stop refuting him, and/or driving good editors away, that is very clearly disruptive and highly detrimental to the project. Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose topic ban as per Aquillion. Paul is opinionated, but he is a dedicated editor, not a disrupter.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:IDHT, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIR, WP:PROFRINGE, and other such policies and guidelines. If someone is continually disrupting a talkpage(s) against consensus, and/or threatening to take their WP:FRINGE promotion to all other related articles, and/or threatening to unilaterally revert to their preferred version of an article if people stop refuting him, and/or driving good editors away, that is very clearly disruptive and highly detrimental to the project. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose topic ban. I am cited far above (because I commented at Talk:Pontius Pilate) and I think I may possibly be grouped by Paul among those who wrote to criticise his comments on the basis of what other people said. If so, Paul, I'm only a tiny bit hurt :) I hesitated to comment here at all. I found the discussion on that talk page almost entirely off topic, and Paul (among others) led it that way. What would I do? I would advise him to leave Pontius Pilate to others for a while and I would suggest a bit more reading among authors who take varied views of the historicity of Jesus. Andrew Dalby 11:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topics bans on both Pontius Pilate and on Jesus and Christianity, broadly construed and consider extending it to the Soviet Union and communism, broadly construed. What has been demonstrated here is relentless and persistent POV-pushing that has driven people away from the project. I have no faith in this user to constructively contribute to this project Toa Nidhiki05 19:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I too think that he should also be banned from Communism/USSR. His edits on these talk pages are absolutely unreal. T8612 (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (I already commented above but adding this after some further consideration). Oppose topic ban. Paul's pattern of long talk page discussions is not limited to this topic so if it is a problem, and it might be, it is not one that a topic ban would solve. Paul has an unusual contribution pattern with 64% article talk and 15% on main.[44] Maybe he should reconsider his approach. But Christianity in particular is not the issue. Haukur (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you propose to make him stop? Permaban? T8612 (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know! Maybe nothing for now. But ANI is also poorly equipped to handle big picture long-term issues like this which might require a lot of analysis to get right. Haukur (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel there's a better venue for such discussions? (I don't plan on taking it up, I'm just curious. I'm still pretty ignorant about the various options for dealing with behavioral options on Wikipedia).--Ermenrich (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if ANI cannot solve a supposed problem then the next(and last) step is arbitration.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a long standing block? He seems to have been able to do good work on the site despite his biases. Maybe if he got some time off he would realize he needs change his ways.★Trekker (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt that Paul will be sanctioned. This is the case when different people had very different experience while interacting with Paul. That's because he is very careful, especially when he speaks with admins like Nick-D. My experience was very negative. While interacting with me, he was not shy to summarily dismiss several very strong RS based on his WP:OR [45]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case those Admins need to check themselves and not let their personal feelings towards him get in the way of their duties.★Trekker (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fulfilled my duty by submitting an AE report. Admins decided not to act. Now this is problem of community. But I am out. Time is up, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose topic ban For three reasons 1) I'm concerned that this has been motivated by, to be blunt, incorrect assessments of Paul's pattern of contributions and some kind of weird bias against talk page posts (what's wrong with frequently joining discussions on talk pages?) 2) there's something of a "closed shop" mentality in the discussions at the top of this thread, with a small number of editors trying to claim that there's a consensus among scholars which other editors are pointing out doesn't actually exist (e.g., that it is probably not "fringe" to say that Jesus never existed, though it's very much a minority view) 3) This is premature: Paul is an excellent editor in good standing, and I'm confident that he'll reflect on this discussion and correct any problems with his contributions. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is kinda fascinating in a disturbing way. Some people want him to get off scot-free, no nothing. Others want him wholesale banned from Wikipedia.★Trekker (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my point 3: I'm pretty sure Paul is capable of taking feedback on board. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with what I said.★Trekker (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"[W]hat's wrong with frequently joining discussions on talk pages?" Please read WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:IDHT, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIR, WP:PROFRINGE, and other such policies and guidelines. If someone is continually disrupting a talkpage(s) against consensus, and/or threatening to take their WP:FRINGE promotion to all other related articles, and/or threatening to unilaterally revert to their preferred version of an article if people stop refuting him, and/or driving good editors away, that is very clearly disruptive and highly detrimental to the project. Softlavender (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking about WWII page, here is the last suggestion by Paul. He tells that our page "creates a wrong impression that Soviet army deliberately stopped to let Nazi to suppress the the Warsaw uprising". Well, our page actually tells the following: "The Soviet Red Army remained in the Praga district on the other side of the Vistula and watched passively as the Germans quelled the Warsaw Uprising initiated by the Armia Krajowa". This is a historical fact, and indeed, according to many historians, the Soviet Army deliberately stopped to let Nazi to suppress the uprising. This is the kind of things Paul constantly pushes. My very best wishes (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow this is truly shocking. I no longer believe he's even remotely ignorant, this seems like deliberate POV pushing.★Trekker (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm This isn't POV pushing: you both just have no idea what you're talking about. Lots of historians argue this. The Red Army had advanced beyond its supply lines, the Polish uprising was badly timed (they were hoping to pre-empt the Soviets entering the city, but the Soviets had reached their limits and the Germans had a solid defensive position) and making an opposed crossing of a major river is a massive challenge for any army. Nick-D (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Back at you. He's clearly the POV pushing, rude and gaslighting editor who's had a history of Communist apologism. He uses the benefit of the doubt to try to weasle in stuff.★Trekker (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but let's check the Encyclopædia Britannica as a good 3rd party encyclopedic source (link): "As the Red Army approached Warsaw (July 29–30, 1944), Soviet authorities, promising aid, encouraged the Polish underground there to stage an uprising against the Germans... Meanwhile, the Red Army, which had been detained during the first days of the insurrection by a German assault, occupied a position at Praga, a suburb across the Vistula River from Warsaw, and remained idle. In addition, the Soviet government refused to allow the western Allies to use Soviet air bases to airlift supplies to the beleaguered Poles.... By allowing the Germans to suppress the Warsaw Uprising, the Soviet authorities also allowed them to eliminate the main body of the military organization that supported the Polish government-in-exile in London. Consequently, when the Soviet army occupied all of Poland, there was little effective organized resistance to its establishing Soviet political domination over the country and imposing the communist-led Provisional Government of Poland (Jan. 1, 1945)." So, according to EB, there is no question that the Soviet side "allowed the Germans to suppress the Warsaw Uprising" My very best wishes (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a rather large and complex literature on this issue. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly, and the views by historians differ. That's why I cited a good quality tertiary source. Such sources do not provide details, but they provide good summary consensus/majority views on a subject. My very best wishes (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D, I think Britannica may be right, and Stalin really promised to provide some support for the uprising (if he knew about that). That looks realistic. What I meant, the current text implies that Red Army deliberately stopped (deliberately changed its plans) to help Germans to suppress the uprising. That is not the case. As you can see, in my (selectively cited) post I noted that the USSR could probably provide more support, but no evidences exists that they planned to advance to Warsaw and changed the plans due to the uprising. What is more likely that Stalin made a promise that he was not able to fulfill. Or even didn't plan to.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what EB tells. EB tells it was a deliberate, logical and successful action planned by the Soviet side (obviously, the plan had to be suggested or approved by Stalin). My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, that is exactly my understanding of events as well. Gerhard Weinberg writes about this in great detail in A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II (one of my favorite reads!). CThomas³ (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose topic ban: the case for the sanction is not convincing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to elaborate Coffman? I really value your input around WWII topics, and this user seems to be doing worrying things to Soviet related pages.★Trekker (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban at the least. If only he could be banned from typing anything more than one plain sentence one time only into any talk page. How much time has been taken by the above and the interminable talk page rows that have been brewed up ALL OVER WP? It's a full time job just to keep up with it, the volume of verbiage, comment and circular discussion that has contributed not one byte to the project itself is frankly depressing. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the matter with Paul's talk page contributions on, say, World War II-related topics? I've been in tons of discussions with him in this space over several years, and have always appreciated them. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban on Christianity broadly construed which should be understood to include any Biblical as well as other notable figures in Christian history per User:Ad_Orientem and User:T8612. This kind of problematic behavior is exhausting to other editors, and does in fact drive them away from the affected articles, as User:Toa Nidhiki05 and User:My very best wishes have shown. They've also shown that PS's problematic behavior isn't limited to this one article. I'm not convinced by Aquillion's oppose. The walls of text obscure WP:CONSENSUS, especially if the correct side chooses to stop responding. It's clear from the discussion that PS wants to push a fringe view in this topic and his edits are very unlikely to be productive. Without a WP:TBAN, this will require a lot of effort from other editors to monitor and repair. While theoretically other editors could just do that work, I don't really see any good reason why they should have to waste their time on something like that. Also, given the large number of obscure articles in this topic, they probably can't even be successful at that. The best outcome is that PS refrain from editing in this topic, and given his WP:IDHT, it's best for the project that it be enforced by a WP:TBAN. There are some other issues, but a TBAN will hopefully solve the problem by removing the motivation. - GretLomborg (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban on Christianity broadly construed. This editor clearly is falling foul of WP:DISRUPT, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV etc. His disruptive editing is causing an enormous drain on multiple editors who, as a result, have much less time to productively edit the encyclopedia because of this disruptive POV pushing drama.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. To those wondering if Paul is going to go through with his promise to rewrite these articles, I'd like to call your attention to the following two diffs [46] [47]. While it's possible that that article could have been worded better, I think in the context of everything that's been brought up here so far it's rather worrying.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. Unless he receives the topic ban, Paul will probably rewrite these pages, and there is little you can do about it. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They have backed up their claim with a source. As long as you cannot convince me that they have deliberately or recklessly misrepresented the source or the sourcing situation I see no cause for action.Lurking shadow (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We also need to set a pretty high bar before calling a living person a prominent believer in fringe theories. The claim that this person is fringe does not appear to have a specific citation - the quote to Gullotta included in the reference does not appear to support the claim that this person is noting less than "a leading supporter of a fringe" theory. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban on Christianity; broadly construed and A keen eye kept on the editor in question to ensure the behavior is not merely relocated. Paul is far from the first editor who generates reams of talk page content ad nauseum - and yes, it's invariably deemed disruptive, though how long it takes for the disruptiveness to get sanctioned mostly depends on the size of the fanclub of the prodigous-text-generator. And yes, there are always a few (or a few more than a few) editors who declare that there's no rule against long posts on talk page - which is irrelevant, as it's more the content of the posts than their length. Paul's disruptiveness is well documented throughout this entire mess, which is really beginning to give me Brews O'Hare flashbacks. Seth Kellerman (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC). And taking the grandstanding and bloviating below into account, support full site ban with the broadly construed topic ban on Christianity as a mere minimum. Seth Kellerman (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Here is the latest discussion initiated by Paul. Everyone makes mistakes and may not know the subject. That's fine. However, after receiving strong objections from several other contributors on the talk page, a dissenter (Paul in this case) has two choices: (a) to study better this subject, or (b) go edit something else. What should NOT happen is a prolonged and contentious dispute with other contributors who know this subject better. This is a mistake sometimes made by newbies. However, Paul has an enormous experience on wiki. He does it because this is his "modus operandi" on all pages. I think he has certain New Soviet manish biases (note his mentioning of Bulgakov on the talk page about Pontius Pilate), and fights literally to death to promote these biases on all pages he edits. This is simply a more obvious example. As about Brews O'Hare, yes, I too thought about Brews, but he was a lot nicer than Paul. My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Brews was far nicer than Paul, but what really made me think of that situation was how they both have a small group of editors who are adamantly denying, all evidence to the contrary, that there is anything at all wrong with Paul's conduct - and they're doing it loudly and frequently enough that it's 1) going to give any admin attempting to close this mess pause, 2) give the impression of 'no consensus' to anyone who only wants to skim this instead of actually reading it. Seth Kellerman (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second proposal: Warning

If there is not consensus for a TBAN (which I think there may in the end still be, but assuming the first proposal fails), would there be consensus for issuing some sort of warning? This could then be referenced in any future action at ANI assuming Paul Siebert continues this behavior/spreads it to other Jesus-related articles, as he seems to intend.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am a little bit puzzled about the possible text of that warning. What this warning should be about? To print less characters? Talk page guidelines set no limits. Not to call someone Christian? Actually, it is easy to implement, but will it have any positive effect, taking into account that I actually didn't do that?

The important result of this discussion is this your post. I am not sure if this argument is strong (I am figuring it out currently), but it is done in a correct way. That is a type of arguments I was expecting to see from you from the very beginning, because this type arguments are used on talk pages I am usually working on. Had you responded in this way from the very beginning, there would be no conflict at all, or the discussion would be much more brief. If you will be sticking to this way of communication, there will be virtually no conflicts in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) We are not obliged to prove to you that a fringe theory is fringe when you continually dismissed any source presented to as Christian. Icewhiz suggested that the Christ myth theory might be minority, not fringe, and I countered with a RS calling it fringe. Note he says he actually looked at what the sources cited at Historicity of Jesus and Jesus myth theory said before though. This is different than you assuming you are right on the matter and ignoring literally everyone telling you that you were mistaken.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see diffs demonstrating that I "continually dismissed any source presented to as Christian". That statement is weird, because virtually no sources were presented during that discussion.

Anyway, Iv'e just demonstrated you a possible exit from an impasse: I am openly saying "Your last argument was good, and it is supported by a reasonably good quality source. I am not sure it is strong, but, at least, it is addressable. If you continue is this vein I am pretty certain there hardly will be conflicts in future." I think, if your real goal is not an escalation of a conflict (I hope it isn't), the conflict may be considered resolved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)And, regarding your comment on Icewhiz: I also looked at that page, and I found it was poorly written. However, as I already explained to you, to direct your opponent to some Wikipedia page (in this tone) is a kind of disrespect: you were supposed to provide a concrete reference and a quote (as you have done above). Before claiming your opponent is not prone to arguments, make sure your arguments are presented in a correct way. Anyway, I hope we started to understand each other better. Can we conclude the conflict is resolved?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See [48], [49], [50], [51]. I named specific sources from the article bibliography multiple times without any coherent response from you except to say that a passage in Tacitus is fabricated, based on one article by Richard Carrier, and to insist that Jesus is a mythical being without any historical existence.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the first diff relates to Bond: I posted a question on RSN, and that cannot be interpreted as I dismissed a source. My conclusion was that the source was not good not because it is Christian, but because Bond just briefly mentions this fact in the introduction. That was by no means a detailed analysis of the issue. Other three diffs contain no references at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time: I was never debating with you about a passage in Tacitus. Whether it is authentic or inauthentic was entirely immaterial to the discussion: we are talking about your allegations that I dismiss sources because they are "Christian". I mention several other authors in those posts. You never once replied on any of them.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tacitus is irrelevant to this discussion. Why are you returning to this issue again? Are you interested to end this conflict or not?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, you mentioned Alexander Demandt, Helen Bond, and Daniel Schwartz. I picked Bond for more detailed analysis because you quoted her, and I rejected it because she left the question of authenticity beyond the scope. But I didn't reject her because she was "Christian". By the way, do you realise that the very structure of Bond's work is close to what I proposed? She clearly separated a discussion of the Gospels and non-Christian sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Did you read what you yourself wrote? My conclusion was that the source was not good not because it is Christian, but because Bond just briefly mentions this fact in the introduction. You specific asked in the RFN In her PhD thesis, Helen Bond says that the Annals 15.44 are an independent source about crucifixion of Jesus, along with four Gospels. And again Icewhiz, the question is not if this passage is being attributed to Tacitus (I think noone doubts in that). The question is if this source is reliable to support a claim there is a consensus that this passage is authentic. You did not ask if it was a reliable source for the historical existence of Jesus, and given that both people who responded said it was per se a RS, what answer do you think you would have gotten? If I include sources that find the existence of Jesus so uncontroversial that they don't need to prove it, don't you think you ought to have rethought your position somewhat?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this your post sidetracks the discussion. Your original point was that I "continually dismissed any source presented to as Christian". As a support for this claim, you provided the example where ONE source was dismissed by me, and the argument that is was a PhD in Theology was just one of many. Don't you find your evidences shaky?

Let's stay focused on the main topic.

• When my vis-s-vis provide a concrete reference and a concrete quote that demonstrate their point, I always take such argument seriously.
• When someone says "I am telling you for the fourth time you are wrong", I consider no arguments were presented.
• When someone says "Read John Smith", I may either respond to it or ignore it, because the argumentation of that kind shows one's disrespect and does not indicate one's serious attitude to the issue. If Icewhiz does not feel offended in such situation, that is a sign of his very good faith. He is absolutely not obliged to take such arguments seriously. In addition, responces to such posts take more efforts and are intrinsically longer. Remember, one of the accusations thrown against me was the length of my posts; had I responded to all of that, my posts would be even longer.
• Finally, I already told you that this your post is an example of GOOD argumentation. What else do you need?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not taking lessons in you on good argumentation. You're amply showing why I think at least a warning is necessary.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not giving lessons, I am explaining what I see as a good argumentation, bad argumentation and lack of argumentation. I am explaining my position in an attempt to avoid conflicts in future. If you cannot understand that, then, probably, one party really needs a warning. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Siebert and Ermenrich: You both need to stop trying to bludgeon the life out of this discussion and let the community review the situation. GoldenRing (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I find it hard not to reply, but I will resist that urge from now on. I hope other people will consider my second proposal though.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I myself realized the discussion has come to a logical end. I will be busy during next two weeks, please inform me if there will be any news deserving my attention.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You said the same thing yesterday, I doubt this will end anytime soon in all actuality. But I hope for everyones sanity that there can be a beneficial result in some way.★Trekker (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The user has had warnings galore, including from administrators, and he is still endlessly engaging in WP:DE and WP:TE. He has already driven good editors away from various talkpages. He has made it very clear, in a number of venues, that he is not going to stop his endless crusade promoting his current pet WP:FRINGE theory. The only way we can prevent further disruption to the project, and it is indeed disruption, is to issue a sanction of some sort. That's not even counting his CIR and DE/TE tendencies on numerous other unrelated talkpages. Softlavender (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I think he has had one warning, from Doug Weller. I dont know of any others.--Ermenrich (talk)

Not true. He had 4 warnings on Talk:Pontius Pilate: [52], [53], [54], [55]; and 3 warnings on his own talk page: [56], [57], [58]. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose warning – PS has already been issued a warning by Doug Weller on July 31, and hasn't done anything since then to merit another warning. He says he'll be away for two weeks, and has already said he will stop with the TLDR posts because they're not effective. In my view, Doug already handled this several days ago, and now it's time to close this report and we'll see what happens in two weeks. – Levivich 02:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. If this discussion gets cloased already I will feel it is an insult to Wikipedia's standards. I'm utterly amazed that any user on this site could come to this discussion and not realize there is something very sinister going on with this man. He pushes fringe, thinks he has authority over subjects which he's clearly completely ignorant about, he scares away good editors, he insults people and uses classic gaslighting techniques. Oh and lets not forget the communism apologetics.★Trekker (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who came on board with this discussion because I was alarmed by what Mr. Siebert seemed to be saying about sources, bias, and the desirability of making wholesale revisions to all project pages concerning the historicity of Jesus to reflect an unscholarly point of view, I feel somewhat reluctantly compelled to ask my friends from WP:CGR and related projects to put down their sticks and avoid becoming the ones whose demands appear unreasonable. I think we nearly all agree that what Mr. Siebert proposed to do would have been inappropriate and against consensus—both Wikipedian and scholarly. But none of these proposed changes was ever implemented on the article that originally brought us here, or by Mr. Siebert in any other article. All of this hullabaloo has taken place on talk pages, and concerns something purely hypothetical. There is no threat to the encyclopedia. If Mr. Siebert wants to edit the articles in question, which is his right, then there are plenty of editors here who can look over the changes, and refactor or revert any edits that need it. It's just that easy. There's no need to ask for topic bans or other administrative sanctions for something that hasn't happened and may never happen, as long as whatever is done is subject to the review of other editors. From my point of view, we can revisit this discussion if and when Mr. Siebert's edits become not just imperfect, but disruptive. If the only issue is how much weight to give certain theories, or where they should be mentioned, I think we can handle it without invoking Thor's hammer. P Aculeius (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually kind of agree that some of the discussion has gotten a little out of hand here. I do wish we could agree to just give him a slap on the wrist or something, but at this point I'm just waiting to see if anyone else wants to chime in on the TBAN/warning so we can wrap this up. It's all been rather exhausting.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree, his actions so far seem to be very dangerous. I wouldn't trust this man around any of the topics we've covered so far.★Trekker (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What danger would that be? The risk that he might make edits that go against the consensus of other editors? We deal with that all the time without bothering the admins. We know he's editing in good faith, unlike countless vandals, so some of his edits might be perfectly fine. Others may only need a little tweaking. Even reverting an edit that makes no sense only takes a minute. And this place will still be open if and when we really need it. I'm not asking anyone to trust anyone else. Just treat this situation like any other. There's a perfectly good stick rack over there in the corner. P Aculeius (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already pointed out thousands of times already all the things which I have said he does which is hugely disruptive. If you're going to try to claim "oh he's just going agains concesus, not a big deal" (big deal to me) and try to claim this situation is not worth admins time I don't know what you've been readin so far.★Trekker (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What cases are worth admins time if a large controversial one like this one isn't?★Trekker (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something that shows some more serious "disruption" than just one argument, one topic, almost entirely confined to one talk section, with no edit-warring involved. Just off the top of my head, things that would actually make this worth the time and effort would include edit-warring on talk to re-open a closed discussion; trying to edit the article without consensus (of course); opening large numbers of redundant discussions; and otherwise generally making it impossible for other people to just walk away. But the idea that a consensus on talk forbids people from simply continuing to reply strikes me as a bridge too far, especially since there are numerous options for ending a discussion that nobody involved seems to have attempted yet. Again, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the purpose here is to ask for administrative confirmation that you have "won" the argument or that Siebert is wrong on the facts, which isn't the purpose of ANI. Nothing seems to be preventing you from hatting the section, starting an RFC, or even just walking away, then letting everyone else move on with their lives; so if this really is as disruptive as you say (which I still think is silly), you seem to be as responsible for it as Siebert is. --Aquillion (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Closing adminFinal remarks

I got a brief access to Internet, and I am going to make an important statement in close future that will resolve the issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part 1. I am bringing my apologies

Following the Ermenrich's advice, I examined the writings of some authors cited in Wikipedia articles on that topic, and I believe I understand now that Ii made one serious mistake. The author who convinced me in that is Bart D. Ehrman, an expert whose reliability all participants of this discussion trust (I hope). His book is cited in the article about Richard Carrier (ref 8). Unfortunately, I got no access to the above book, but I found another Bart's book by Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. I am also agree that he is a good scholar and, importantly, an intellectually honest person (I'll explain later why I came to this conclusion), so I also take his words seriously. In the introduction to this book, he writes (sorry for a long quote, but it is relevant):

"Every week I receive two or three e-mails asking me whether Jesus existed as a human being. When I started getting these e-mails, some years ago now, I thought the question was rather peculiar and I did not take it seriously. Of course Jesus existed. Everyone knows he existed. Don’t they?But the questions kept coming, and soon I began to wonder: Why are so many people asking?

My wonder only increased when I learned that I myself was being quoted in some circles—misquoted rather—as saying that Jesus never existed. I decided to look into the matter. I discovered, to my surprise, an entire body of literature devoted to the question of whether or not there ever was a real man, Jesus.I was surprised because I am trained as a scholar of the New Testament and early Christianity, and for thirty years I have written extensively on the historical Jesus, the Gospels, the early Christian movement, and the history of the church’s first three hundred years. Like all New Testament scholars, I have read thousands of books and articles in English and other European languages on Jesus, the New Testament, and early Christianity. But I was almost completely unaware—as are most of my colleagues in the field—of this body of skeptical literature.

"I should say at the outset that none of this literature is written by scholars trained in New Testament or early Christian studies teaching at the major, or even the minor, accredited theological seminaries, divinity schools, universities, or colleges of North America or Europe (or anywhere else in the world). Of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who do teach at such schools, none of them, to my knowledge, has any doubts that Jesus existed. But a whole body of literature out there, some of it highly intelligent and well informed, makes this case. "

These words convinced me that my words about users who are pushing Christian propaganda were totally silly, and I sincerely apologize for that. I fully agree with Cullen³²⁸'s comment, but please, take into account that by the moment I wrote those wrong and inaccurate words, I was unfamiliar with Bart's writings, so this my mistake was understandable and forgivable. Again, I am bringing my sincere apologies.

Part 2. I am expecting apologies

Below is a continuation of the quote from Ehrman. Again, I apologise for a long quote, but I believe it is important to demonstrate I didn't take his words out of context. Ehrman writes:

" These sundry books and articles (not to mention websites) are of varying quality. Some of them rival The Da Vinci Codein their passion for conspiracy and the shallowness of their historical knowledge, not just of the New Testament and early Christianity, but of ancient religions generally and, even more broadly, the ancient world. But a couple of bona fide scholars—not professors teaching religious studies in universities but scholars nonetheless, and at least one of them with a Ph.D. in the field of New Testament—have taken this position and written about it. Their books may not be known to most of the general public interested in questions related to Jesus, the Gospels, or the early Christian church, but they do occupy a noteworthy niche as a (very) small but (often) loud minority voice. Once you tune in to this voice, you quickly learn just how persistent and vociferous it can be.And the voice is being heard loud and clear in some places. Even a quick Internet search reveals how influential such radical skepticism has been in the past and how rapidly it is spreading even now. For decades it was the dominant view in countries such as the Soviet Union. Yet more striking, it appears to be the majority view in some regions of the West today, including some parts of Scandinavia."

I believe these words are a proof that it is absolutely incorrect to call Jesus Myth Theory (a.k.a. JMT) fringe: even a notable proponent of the opposite view says it is not the case, and he even concedes that JMT is a majority view in some parts of the Western world, and its popularity is growing.

Obviously, since to prove negative (namely, to debunk the claim that JMT is fringe) is much easier that to prove positive, and ONE good source saying that JMT is not fringe is quite sufficient for that, I have sustained my burden of evidence per WP:V.

In connection to that, I expect all users who cited WP:FRINGE or CIR during their !vote (namely, Softlavender, Ermenrich, Ad Orientem, bonadea, Amakuru, Nosebagbear, T8612, Toa , Alexandermcnabb, GretLomborg, Literaturegeek | T@1k?, Seth Kellermanto withdraw their votes and explicitly apologize, for their assertions were based on a false premise and contradicted to what a reliable source says. I am sure you sincerely believed JMT was fringe, so I am not accusing you of bad faith. However, now, when you have been informed about that your mistake, you owe me apologies.

Let me make a stress on Ehrman's words: "Even a quick Internet search reveals". What does it means? It means that the above mentioned users didn't bothered to do even a quick Internet search to verify that CMT is not fringe, which cast a doubt on their competence. Taking into account that some of them threw CIR accusations against me, that sounds weird. I reject a possibility that they knew they that CMT was not fringe and were acting in a bad faith, and their sincere apologies will reaffirm me in that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He’s clearly referring to popular option, not academics. Keep digging your hole, man. Toa Nidhiki05 15:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Re-read this sentence:

"Their books may not be known to most of the general public interested in questions related to Jesus, the Gospels, or the early Christian church, but they do occupy a noteworthy niche as a (very) small but (often) loud minority voice."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All books are not written by academics. Anyone can write a darn book and spout whatever they like.★Trekker (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"bona fide scholars—not professors teaching religious studies in universities but scholars nonetheless, and at least one of them with a Ph.D. in the field of New Testament" They do not belong to the same field as Ehrman, but they are definitely academics. In addition, my task was just to prove negative, which I have successfully done.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I also cited FRINGE. And I don't feel very compelled to apologize.★Trekker (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't vote, but your apologies are warmly welcome.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't apologize. Nor does that quote support what you say, as it's clearly about popular opinion, as Nidhik says.

I won't apologize for invoking WP:FRINGE, as I disagree rather strongly with your interpretation of the passage above. But I do apologize for anything else I might have said that was hurtful. Things have gotten rather heated.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I meant, his apologies would be very welcome.

Regarding the rest, I presented the words of a prominent supporter of the theory of histricity of Jesus, who (i) concedes that the JMT is a minority but a notable viewpoint that is a majority view in some parts of the West, and (ii) he, as well as many Christian scholar was unaware of that fact. Obviously, that means that Christian scholars work in isolation, and Ehrman's view gives as just a lower margin: CMT is at least a significant minority view. I see absolutely no possibility for a double interpretation. Anyway, you may disagree, but this my interpretation deserves a serious consideration, and if you ignore it, we have a serious CIR issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Ehrman isn't a Christian.--Ermenrich (talk)

I meant not his religion but the scope of his interests.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Your gall is boundless. Stop it man. T8612 (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part 3. Ermenrich. To be continued.

I suggest you to look at that. Briefly, I found the statement in one BLP article that the living person is a fringe theorist. When I examined some sources cited in this article, I found that this statement is at least controversial, so must be immediately removed per WP:BLP I was obliged to immediately remove this contentious material waiting for discussion, which I did. In addition, as an act of a good faith, I explained that on a talk page and made my best to inform users who decided to restore this material about possible BLP sanctions.

In that situation, Ermenrich had three options:

1. To revert me, which would lead to an ANI report per BLP. However, if Ermenrich is confident JMT is fringe, that report wouldn't do any harm to them, and just demonstrated that this user is ready to take risk, but they sincerely believe their POV is a majority view.
2. To refrain from revert, and to concede that the claim that JMT is fringe is probably contenious, because it cannot be placed in BLP articles. That would demonstrate Ermenrich is intellecually honest.
3. Instead, Ermenrich decided to go the third way: they appeared to be not brave enough to revert what they believe an obvious PROFRINGE edit, and presented this story as an argument against me on this page. This step is hard to explain assuming this user is intellecually honest, like Ehrman. This shakes my believe in his good faith. I would be glad to see the evidence of the opposite, so Ermenrich's explanations are welcome here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This completely mischaracterizes what happened.I posted a neutrally-worded mention of the discussion at Talk:Historicity of Jesus [59]. I did not ask anyone to revert your edit or warn you, but if you're going to challenge the existing consensus it shouldn't be done article by article, as I state here, informing the talk page that I'd mentioned it at Historicity of Jesus. [60]. I am not an expert on this topic, nor do I hope to ever have much dealing with it (or you) again after this ANI is over.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May be. But the absolutely non-neutral post at ANI completely disproves your above statement and cast a dark shadow on your reputation of a good faith user.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the information was relevant to the discussion and if anyone disagreed about my concerns they were free to voice them. I even admitted that there may have been a problem at the article as it was written. You're reaching here just like you did when you tried to accuse me of WP:OWN.--Ermenrich (talk)

Part 4. Seth Kellerman's note

From to this post, I conclude that I am not the first user who has been attacked by a group of users sharing the same view. Since this situation poses a danger to Wikipedia, I am contemplating a possibility to file a request against the users who are listed above. I think it would be correct to ban those users from commenting on ANI when they are not parties (i.e. when they are not reporting or they have not been reported), per CIR. This is not an act of retaliation (I am pretty capable of defending myself), this is aimed to protect other users who express minority but not fringe views. That is why, as an act of my good faith, I am proposing the above users to apologize and to promise they will reconsider their approach to dispute resolution in future, and will take the arguments from others more seriously.

I am pretty sure this situation reached the point when ArbCom will take this case for consideration.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part 5. BLP violation

The case described in the Part 3 definitely deserves ANI as WP:BLP violation. I removed this material again, and in the case if this content will be restored I'll report that user on ANI. That is not my habit to go to ANI, I prefer to persuade people on talk pages instead, however, since many people complain I am making to many posts, I'll try to change my strategy.

By the way, in the unlikely case if the contentious material about Carrier will be restored, and the case will go to ANI, we will easily see if CMT is fringe.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The End.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm really sorry, but it's late here in the UAE so I feel I must just intercede for a moment before I leave. I'm not being insulting and intent no disparagement, but I honestly believe this is really not normal and should be, in the interests of everyone here, shut down right now. That's just IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1. I have no words. Dumuzid (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I'm a little confused now. What exactly demands that the ANI is over now?★Trekker (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is saying [61] that unless everyone will apologize to him, he will complain about you all to the Arbitration Committee. I do not think he is serious. This is just a threat. My very best wishes (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What would happen if it went to ArbCom exactly? I've never been involved in one of those cases.★Trekker (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe if this will go there, I'll request ArbCom to impose the above described editing restrictions on all above mentioned users (and probably on you). That will not prevent you from editing, will not prevent you from filing reports on any noticeboards, and from defending yourselves when you are reported. However, you will not be allowed to support accusations thrown by others, for the above mentioned users demonstrated they are ready to support their fellow editors against those who has different POV without bothering to check factual accuracy of the evidenced presented. I believe you understand that is not a threat and not an act of retaliation. That is an attempt to protect other users from unjustified attacks by not sufficiently competent users. Again, it is easy to avoid by bringing apologies and promising to do careful analysis of evidences.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking in general what a ArbCom is for, not what you would want to happen.★Trekker (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t going to ArbCom. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may not go if apologies will be brought. Otherwise I'll submit it to ArbCom, and the arbitrators will vote if they are taking it for closer consideration. Then each parties presents their evidences, after that the ArbCome will make their decision. I again losing access to a computer, so I am done. Good luck.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get wasting time on enormous walls of text is your thing, but that’s not going to work here. You’re not going to threaten anyone into doing anything. Empty threats are empty threats. Toa Nidhiki05 18:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't extort people for apologies, they need to be genuine to be worth anything.★Trekker (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, you are right! I didn't think about that. Anyway, I expect my opponents to demonstrate a capability of accepting arguments, and a capability of presenting something more substantial than "you are acting against consensus". I am not expecting you to agree with me, but I expect arguments similar to the one presented by Joshua Jonathan. Otherwise you are disruptive, and your opinion has a zero weight.--20:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you know it's true why are you trying to threaten people into giving you apologies?★Trekker (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Labelling Richard Carrier as a "fringe" supporter, in the lead no less, is indeed a serious issue - and should be discussed at BLP/n - and absent strong supporting sources would be actionable at AE - you don't need ARBCOM as all BLPs are under DS. .Icewhiz (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to go to ArbCom regarding Carrier. By the way, we are discussing a violation that has not happened yet: this material has not been restored so far.

By the way, Icewhiz, is the topic as whole under DS?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All living people are.Icewhiz (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Alexandermcnabb, apologies taken. :-)--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CMT is definitely fringe. See Christ myth theory#Scholarly reception and Talk:Christ myth theory/Archive 30#Once Again (sigh), It Seems that I need to Post This - Sources Saying that "most scholars agree". And believe me, I know. I love that theory, I'm the main contributor to the CMT-article (1,420 edits so far, sorry, sorry...), but CMT has no place whatsoever in the works of people like James Dunn (theologian) (Jesus Remembered] and Larry Hurtado (Lord Jesus Christ)(compare the number of citations for Carrier's books). The real reserach-questions are: what do the (Christian) sources tell us about Jesus, and how do we know what they tell us; and how did Christianity evolve from the man Jesus to the messianic Jewish movement from which the Christian tradition evolved? Regarding the second question, the main (naturalistic) explanation is that Jesus had a profound impact on his followers, who had strong religious experiences after Jesus' death, mixed with an inspired reading of the scriptures, which convinced them that Jesus was (the first) risen from the dead, heralding the onset of the endtime and the coming of God's Kingdom. This is basically what Dunn and Hurtado, both Christians, but also others, argue; it's a view that's offensive for 'orthodox' Christians. And yes, religious experiences and inspired reading are the stuff of mythology and faith; but that Jesus existed is the mainstream answer to the first question, while only a few authors conclude question one with the answer that Jesus never existed at all. And note, the literature on the origins on Christianity is so overwhelming, that Dunn lamented that even for professionals like him it's virtually impossible to keep on track with everything that's published. In this flood of publications, no CMT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I will gladly discuss it with you later, when I finish reading on that subject. However, the data I found so far show that that theory seems rather popular among agnostics and leftist intellectuals (including scholars). As we can conclude from Ehrman's words (cited above), the scholars who study the Gospels seem to work in isolation from others, and they are not aware of opinion os historians who study a history of ancient Middle East from other perspectives. That situation is not uncommon: I already saw similar examples in genocide studies and other topics. Again, my opinion may change depending on what I find (I'll do my best to read the sources you mentioned too), but the question is definitely a subject of a serious and polite debates, not of !vote by persons who hate reading long and thoughtful posts and prefer to take sides without serious considerations. Hopefully, at the end of August I will be able to say something concrete. Good luck.--19:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not true that "As we can conclude from Ehrman's words (cited above), the scholars who study the Gospels seem to work in isolation from others, and they are not aware of opinion os historians who study a history of ancient Middle East from other perspectives." As Ehrman writes on pges 4 and 5 of the very introduction to which you refer, "Serious historians of the early Christain movement - all of them - have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field ... Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things." I hope that this was not conscious misrepresentation on your part, and that the explanation is that you incompetently stopped reading Ehrman's introduction as soon as you found something you misconstrued in your favour. 80.41.128.7 (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While it is possible its just a misreading on Paul's part, I wouldn't put it past him to just assume that anything he reads confirms his belifes. As he said above, he seemingly claims to not even have been aware that non-Christians could belive that Jesus was real. I don't put much stock into how he researches, even if he can site some published source which claims he's great at it.★Trekker (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, he even misrepresents his own writing. He argued "because it is based on just two small passages from Josephus and Tacitus, which are widely recognised anachronisms or later additions. No other evidences (if we do not consider the Gospels reliable) prove Jesus existence, so we have absolutely no ground to claim Jesus ever existed. Therefore, everybody who believes Jesus (the God or just a human) really existed is, to some degree, a Christian."[62] Less than 20 hours later, he claimed "my statement was based on what high quality peer-reviewed source says: it says that the researchers writing about Christ share similar goals and perspectives with believers, and, again, that is not my assertion, that is a published fact."[63] It blatantly wasn't. 80.41.128.7 (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He behave similarly on other talk pages, except that on other pages he is usually more familiar with the topic. In the diff above he tells: "everybody who believes Jesus (the God or just a human) really existed is, to some degree, a Christian". That comment alone shows that Paul has no even slightest understanding of this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When he argues that Tacitus cannot have written about Jesus because Jesus hadn't been invented yet,[64] it seems he lacks either understanding or the ability to reason. He sure can argue, though. 80.41.128.7 (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Joshua Jonathan. As a note of order, Paul just started another unhelpful discussion: [65]. There was no any BLP violations at the first place. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry and humor. My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Admin's Prayer Our admin who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy encyclopedia come. Thy edits be done, in mainspace as it is in talkspace. Give us this day our daily watchlist, and forgive us our disruptive editing, as we forgive those who edit against consensus, and lead us not into tendentiousness, but deliver us from walls of text. For thine is the toolkit, and the {{atop}}, and the {{abot}}, for ever and ever, Amen. – Levivich 00:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, I needed that, lol.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Good. Now add ten Hail Jimbos and a Glory BLP, then repeat a bunch of times. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] That is fun, ha-ha. What is more funny, is that while you are trying to pile more and more arguments about DE and CIR and excercise in humour, a calm, respectful and polite discussion is unfolding between me and Joshua Jonathan, a user who sincerely believes that JMT is fringe (he said he was a major contributor to that article), but who is ready to demonstrate his point with sources and arguments. I beg you not to interfere in this discussion and not to try to derail it, just watch how a real conversation between two persons who respect positions of each other should look like.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Boooooo. No fun. Bring back PastaPaul. No-fun Paul Siebert is no fun.★Trekker (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure if any of that comment is directed at me, but let me assure you I have not read anything above the line that reads "The Admin's Prayer", and do not intend to. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing site ban

Having stayed out of this discussion despite following it, the latest actions by Paul Siebert leads me to conclude the user needs to be banned from Wikipedia, not just topic banned. I'm ignoring the content disputes and the endless walls of text. The two behavioral problems I see repeated are:

• extensive edit warring. Diffs have already been provided above. Paul repeatedly ignores WP:BRD on article after article. He even continues to edit war while under discussion here. If a user cannot refrain from disruptive editing even while discussed at ANI for previous disruptive behaviour, then it seems very likely he will just continue in the same way.
• extreme entitlement. In all my years at WP, I never saw anything as self-entitled as Paul's post here previously today (see above). First saying I'll request ArbCom to impose the above described editing restrictions on all above mentioned users when it's Paul's disruptive editing and possible that users discuss, and then even It may not go if apologies will be brought. Otherwise I'll submit it to ArbCom is just beyond the pale. To me, this is user who feels above everyone else.
  

Combining these two aspects (continuing disruptive editing even when at ANI for disruptive editing, and stating others must apologise to him when he is the one under investigation) shows a user unable to cooperate with others. To be clear, I'm not commenting on the content disputes, nor do I dispute that Paul may have contributed well in some articles before, but the behaviour we see here is highly disruptive and detrimental to WP. For these reasons, having followed the discussion this far, I love that Paul be indefinitely site banned and for a minimum of six months. Jeppiz (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to move on from this, so I'll be brief. The reason why the discussion above was open for so long was because Paul hasn't been edit warring exactly, just discussing ad infinitum and refusing to get the point. If you want to say he is, after the discussion has been closed in a fairly satisfactory way, I think you'd better provide specific diffs.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]