"

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, [https://en.wikipedia.or