`  Dear Colleagues,  I thank the various administrators and editors for their patience, and for their comments here, on the various talk pages and by email. Many comments have been made about procedural failures. Each of my steps in the dispute resolution process is prefaced with a request for advice and direction about how to do this properly, as I note here, because I did not know how to request, or manage, an ANI conduct review or MEDCOM mediation properly. A decision to block me was made, which I will not contest, based on comprehensive notes from two editors and accusations that I provide no evidence. I did not know how or when to do so, but I am learning quickly. In regard to arguments made by the editors  and , above, and upon which a decision was made to block me, I respond as follows: # I reviewed a long history of contentious discussion and edits in Historicity of Jesus. # I then posted a bold sourced here, which I encourage you to examine. You may see that they are in some cases minor clarifications, in others short simple neutrally toned presentations of divergent academic perspectives. In each instance the sources provided, apply only to the conceptual background of the claims made, and do not pertain to the specific line by line claims of this article, because, the citations largely concern the framework of the discussion not its extensive particulars. # I started a talk page discussion # Smeat75 reverted my edit without discussion here # Smeat75 responded to my talk page discussion, but did not address the reasoning for the revision, here # I continued discussion on the talk page and reverted back my edits here # Ian.thomson reverted my edit with note of ``You must develop consensus`` here # I reverted with note ````Local consensus`` is opposed by Wikipedia:Editing policy. Wait for external review.`` here # I requested external review at WP:RFC and continued discussion on the Talk page here # Ian.thomson reverted the edit I requested review on, again, here # External review collapsed as editors ignored process and comments from external parties # I had been following what I knew of appropriate policy and felt I was being repeatedly reverted without discussion or attempts to communicate, so... # I then requested Dispute Resolution here, please read ``dispute overview`` # Dispute resolution was opened, great comments received from many editors, and closed unresolved, as explained here # On advice of DRN I applied to ANI for advice on resolution of conduct conflicts here, and to MEDCOM for content mediation here # MEDCOM opened the request, 5 editors to date have agreed to mediation # ANI administrator then blocked me without addressing my request for advice, nor making inquiries with me and apparently based solely on the comments of two editors about which I have conduct concerns.  My specific conduct concerns, about some editors, are outlined below. # flagrant misrepresentation and exaggeration of proposed edits and propositions as here, here, here, here, here, and here  # claiming group consensus, here,here, here when there is no consensus at all, as explicitly noted here and by the POV tag, and evidenced by ongoing edit suggestions such as these,here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here coming from many different editors during the course of this conflict. # ignoring requests to communicate as here # insults and harassment as found here, here and discussed here, and extensively discussed here  # Accusations of mental deficiency, incompetence, bigotry, hypocrisy etc as [here, here, here, here, here, here and here # editing other users talk comments as noted here # multiple unsubstantiated accusations or insinuations of sock puppetry as here, and Ian.Thompson here and here and 2 others here and here  Note: there may be overlapping references above. Due to the nature of the discussion, different types of egregious behaviour are mixed together within individual comments.  These activities have been long term, systematic and continuous. They go back months into the Talk page archive. I asked for advice on how to deal with this, and have been blocked for not knowing how to deal with this. As I have learned how this entire processes works, I have attempted to conform to the various procedural requirements, on the fly. If I had known how, and that, I needed to provide this level of detail, I would have already done so, after learning how to. Now I have. My apologies for my ignorance, and the lateness of this material.  regards   `