Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Evidence

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the |talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Historicity of Jesus has been excessively contentious in August and September 2014
It is only sufficient to look at the length of the talk page archives.

See Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 36 at 179kb

See Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 35 at 248kb

See Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 34 at 246kb

Fearofreprisal has been disruptive
FearofReprisal files a frivolous RFM: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Blanking_of_the_Historicity_of_Jesus_page&oldid=628052108
 * The RFM was frivolous if FearofReprisal was aware of the preconditions for mediation, which include (as noted by TransporterMan) the lack of any other dispute resolution activities, and the agreement of all parties to participate in the mediation. Also, the wording of the request for mediation was deeply non-neutral, referring to the blanking of the article.  (If FearofReprisal was not aware of the preconditions for mediation, then the request was not frivolous so much as deeply clueless.)  FearofReprisal was aware that an RFC was in progress, and should have been aware that other parties to the RFM would not agree to the mediation because they supported the shortened article.  If FearofReprisal had requested mediation prior to the bold action of shortening the article, some of the editors would have supported mediation.  The RFM, when it was filed, does not appear to have been intended to resolve issues, but to inflame existing hostility.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

FearofReprisal files a frivolous AIV https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=627919879

Addendum
FearofReprisal's most recent posting, in which he accuses nearly every other involved editor of "serious misconduct", appears to serve no purpose other than to continue to create hostility. There are times at which the policy to assume good faith must be set aside. FearofReprisal is acting in bad faith to maximize hostility and should be considered to be a troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Iseeewe has been disruptive
Iseeewe posts a rant and gets blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=620051235

Iseeewe remains combative https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIseeEwe&diff=620585120&oldid=620584778

Dubious conduct of Kww
I believe that the evidence of Kww’s conduct on the article talk page archives. Beginning on 2 September 2014 in the section now at Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 34 Kww indicates what seems to me to be a less-than-well founded attempt to impugn others with no basis other than the individuals involved being self-declared Christians or others who would support the existence of Jesus, and also I believe demonstrates a rather remarkable lack of basic competence when dealing with matters of history indicating that sources from Buddhist or other non-related historical sources are missing. First. I guess I should declare that I have checked not only Biblical encyclopedias and Christian encyclopedias, but the most comprehensive and recent encyclopedias on Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, religion in general, and biblical studies and found only three which refer to this topic in any significant way, one being the ‘’Anchor Bible Dictionary’’ and the two versions, original and new, of the ‘’Encyclopedia of Unbelief’’.

It should also be noted that Kww goes on for some time indicating that such sources from other faiths should be included. I believe that the lack of even basic competence in the field of history in general that these comments indicate, given their apparent lack of understanding that history is based on historical methodologies, as has been indicated several times in recent archived talk pages and historically, raises serious questions about whether Kww may insert himself in discussions where he is not qualified to take part given a lack of even the most basic understanding of the topic. I also believe that the comment made by Kww here displays what may reasonably be called lack of judgment considering he made here a statement about how “pseudoscience” is not poorly defined, despite the fact that later in that page I indicate that the OED lists 2 definitions of pseudoscience, each of which is based on 17 definitions of science, leading to 34 definitions of the term pseudoscience itself. I believe even the most basic attempt at the research he seems to demand of others in the first link is something he demonstrably refused to do himself in the comment in the second link. John Carter (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Ideological battleground
I believe that recent history of the talk page indicates that for certain editors this topic is ultimately one in which they find that their own dearly held beliefs are being challenged, including in that number both atheists and those who religiously belief in Jesus, and that on that basis this article is more or less an inherent battleground, in much the same way as the Climate change article where so far as I can remember both the proponents and opponents of "global warming" have been described by the other side as presenting pseudoscience in their arguments. There also seem to be to "camps" of academics on this issue, although they are of dissimilar size, which further aggravates the problem. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Wdford
It appears that, with the topic-banning of a single problem editor, the conflict has been resolved. The article is now stable, and has been stable since the banning. The warriors that flocked in to support the banned editor have faded back into the mist from whence they came, the heat has dissipated completely and it has been business as usual ever since. The Historicity of Jesus article is now once again a collection of bloated summaries of other articles, containing IMO more duplication than is necessary, but it is at least stable. Part of the underlying problem could be that there appears to be no guideline on how much detail should be included in a WP:General overview article, or on how concise a section ought to be when it summarizes a main article, but those are technical issues rather than burning concerns. The long-running dispute about whether to use the phrase “most scholars” or “virtually all scholars” or “biblical scholars” is tedious, but it’s hardly problematic. The long-running dispute about which sources are biased and which are reliably objective is also tedious, but it’s hardly problematic either. This article – and related articles – are visited from time to time by POV pushers, but this is readily managed through the usual processes. Provided the problem editor remains topic-banned I don’t see any potential for a future flare-up, and so I am not entirely sure if anything remains to be arbitrated here. Wdford (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I am surprised that Ignocrates now feels that my original edit was disruptive – at the time Ignocrates openly supported my edit and later stated that “As I mentioned at ANI, that was an excellent job creating the disambiguation article in short order, and it diffused the dispute. Well done.”


 * Second, it seems that Fearofreprisal is now attacking me (yet again, and at the very last minute) with the usual array of lies, half-truths and insinuations, so seemingly I need to defend myself after all:


 * Vandalism, by removing content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia - Not only is that a blatant lie, it’s also a clear breach of wikipolicy. My edit was made specifically to improve the quality of the encyclopedia, by removing material that excessively duplicated related articles, and by focusing the Historicity of Jesus article on the core point of “yes Jesus did exist”, so as to eliminate also the contentious issue of redefining the topic of the article, which was being championed by Fearofreprisal against a strong consensus. My edit was then described as “useful” by the facilitating admin ,  , was supported by the facilitating admin  and was then supported by almost all of the editors who had been working on the article with me – including Ignocrates , , , , , , , , , ,.


 * Peremptory removal of sourced material - The material I removed did not disappear from the encyclopedia – it was all already described in detail in related (and better) articles, and my summarizing of this article retained clear summaries of those main articles together with references and wikilinks. No relevant information was lost, and the encyclopedia was not compromised one iota.


 * Ignoring global consensus – the consensus of scholars is that Jesus did exist, and the consensus of wiki-editors at that time was that this scholarly consensus should appear in the article. I was editing in line with the consensus in both cases. I therefore fail to understand the logic – if there is any – of this accusation.


 * Gaming the system – I followed policies through-out, and my contributions were largely well received – see evidence above. It wasn’t me who repeatedly ran to ANI and DRN and elsewhere, and it wasn’t me who called in a host of meat-puppets to support my POV. This is yet another baseless personal attack against me by Fearofreprisal.


 * Personal attacks through casting aspersions without providing evidence, and Personal attacks through assuming bad faith –Fearofreprisal offers no actual evidence to support these aspersions, and flatly states that my “disruptive edit was intentional, and compromised the integrity of Wikipedia” thus mocking WP:AGF. For detailed discussions of Fearofreprisal’s behavior, see, which resulted in Fearofreprisal being topic-banned.


 * Wdford (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Fearofreprisal has accused me of vandalism elsewhere on this page. This is firstly a breach of WP:AGF and WP:VAN. However it is particularly offensive in that Fearofreprisal launched a case against me for Vandalism at WP:AIAV when the edit was made, and the case was refused on the grounds that my edit was not vandalism.  This repeated accusation of vandalism, after a formal case found that my edit was not in fact vandalism, is yet more evidence that Fearofreprisal is an incorrigible problem editor with no respect for the values of this encyclopedia. Wdford (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Evensteven
I would echo John Carter's comments about problems with Kww's arguments; in imo there's not much to add.

It would also appear that it is now permissible once again for all substantiated points of view, including Christian, to be covered in the article material, as it should be. Proof of historicity is not a criterion for article inclusion, and sources have always been allowed to be biased themselves, both being fallacious arguments leveled against Christian apologist sources there. As Wdford says, getting the proper balance in article text and neutrality of statement are the tedious but relevant issues, and that appears to be the nature of the editing now going on.

I have little doubt that editor POV will continue to be a problem from time to time, as it is on many articles, but I agree that there is little to arbitrate at the present time. There is no reasonable way to prevent future disruption by other editors, and there are sure to be future disagreements, as there is no scientific proof from the scholarly world, and the article's subject is thus based on interpretation of evidence that not everyone will accept as valid. It's the nature of the article - inherently subjective. To some, that means bias, when they disagree. Evensteven (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of Fearofreprisal's problematic positions are written directly into his presented evidence here (see "polarizing subject"). It is not the subject that is polarizing, but the theorizing about it that polarizes.


 * 1) Granted, historicity is not a religious term. But it is used legitimately in a religious context when it concerns the historicity of Jesus. How a term is applied in the world is not limited by the predispositions of a WP editor. It can and does include application to Christian belief. Fearofreprisal insists it's about whether or not Jesus "existed", whereas Christian belief maintains he still exists, but not in the body he assumed to come here 2000 years ago. Both do concern the facts about whether he was a man like other humans who walked, talked, ate food, and breathed air on earth as other humans. Fearofreprisal insists the article topic must be limited to what science can prove about those facts, whereas numerous sources do not find themselves restricted by the same limitations. Fearofreprisal argues that those who do not accept his limitations are therefore suspect. He argues points that need to be left to the article sources to argue.
 * 2) As a Christian proponent, I do say "Jesus existed" (that is, Jesus exists, and came to earth as a human). I do not say "of course". Fearofreprisal insists on putting words into others' mouths and framing opinions in a manner not used by them. This is a small, less significant example, but it is exemplary of his tendency to paraphrase inaccurately and inappropriately, both in relation to sources and also to editors. He often insists on restrictions of the source viewpoint simultaneously, and argues against sources themselves when they contain a view other than his own (see here, and the following interchange). The essence of the argument is that the sources in question do not support his view, and that therefore they are suspect sources. By implication, it includes the proprosition that Christian claims are "exceptional". Well, they are (considered in a real-world sense), but they are not (considered in a WP policy sense). The claims of Christianity are not so difficult to verify and the numbers of reliable sources are too numerous to argue about to make arguments to the contrary.
 * 3) In his point #4 he applies the same suspicions to Christian editors. In points #5 and #6, he seems to describe editor misbehavior that has taken place over the history of the article. I cannot speak to the points directly, but I think the acceptance of this arbitration is a good indication there has been some, at least possibly. With regards to editors who tend to drive others away, I ask what Fearofreprisal's purpose was in this comment. Evensteven (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC) Or perhaps in adding and modifying a section title (with edit summary comments) to describe a talk page comment. Evensteven (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Earlier ANI filings
Tendentious POV pushing at Historicity of Jesus

Talkpage violations at Talk:Historicity of Jesus

Wdford on Talk:Historicity of Jesus

Three even earlier incident reports were filed at ANI for conduct issues on the Historicity of Jesus article for a total of eight. Ignocrates (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Repeated filings at ANI were disruptive
Five incident reports were filed at ANI for conduct issues on the Historicity of Jesus article.

(1) Personal attacks by Fearofreprisal: Hijiri 88 00:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC). A community topic ban of Fearofreprisal was enacted by Tom Paris 19:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC); Robert McClenon was the proposer.

(2) Talk page disruption by SPAs: Jeppiz (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC). Closed as already resolved by Tom Paris 20:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC).

(3) Proposal for an indefinite block of Fearofreprisal: Hijiri 88 00:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC). Withdrawn by Hijiri 88, 03:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC) upon review of terms of the topic ban.

(4) Proposal for a one-way interaction ban of Hijiri 88: Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC). Withdrawn by Fearofreprisal 22:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC) to seek a resolution in arbitration.

(5) Proposal for an indefinite site ban of Fearofreprisal: Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC). No action taken by 17 October 2014 (UTC) with enough votes for acceptance of the request for arbitration.

The series of five filings taken as a whole prolonged and escalated the dispute on the Historicity of Jesus article. Ignocrates (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Implementation of a disambiguation article was disruptive
(1) While done in good faith, a disambiguation article was created without discussion 11:20, 1 October 2014 by Wdford citing WP:BOLD.

(2) This was reverted 17:39, 1 October 2014 by Fearofreprisal citing discuss on the article talk page.

(3) The reversion was undone 18:45, 1 October 2014 by Robert McClenon citing revert not explained.

(4) An RfC was initiated on the talk page 02:44, 2 October 2014 by Robert McClenon. (Also, see the Full RfC.)

(5) This led shortly afterward to filing an incident report for vandalism 06:23, 2 October 2014 by Fearofreprisal citing violation of WP:Deletion policy and requesting intervention. Declined as not vandalism 06:26, 2 October 2014.

(6) A request for formal mediation was subsequently filed 07:21, 3 October 2014 by Fearofreprisal claiming the article was blanked and linking to a talk page discussion on Evading WP article deletion policy.

(7) A direct result of this exchange was a proposal at ANI for a topic ban of Fearofreprisal 12:53, 3 October 2014 by Robert McClenon, citing the creation of the disambiguation article, the incident report of vandalism, and the filing for formal mediation.

While intended to resolve the dispute over article content, the bold creation of a disambiguation article disrupted ongoing discussion on the article talk page and escalated a dispute over editor conduct at ANI, which resulted in a topic ban. Ignocrates (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The Historicity of Jesus is a polarizing subject

 * 1) The Historicity of Jesus is the only WP article which specifically focuses on the issue of Jesus' historicity (quality of being historically factual.)
 * 2) Editorial debates in Historicity of Jesus have become strongly associated with real-world polarizations, with the majority advocating for the certain existence of Jesus, and the minority believing that his historical existence is uncertain.
 * 3) Some majority viewpoint editors ridicule, attack, and drive away those who hold the minority viewpoint. (See evidence herein.)
 * 4) Some majority viewpoint editors have attempted to handicap or delete the article, rather than improving it.

Misconduct

 * 1) Prejudicial editing focusing on atheists.
 * 2) Engaging in advocacy

Evidence

 * 1) User space page of single-POV resources
 * 2) Posted list of single-POV citations
 * 3) Advocacy against Christ Myth Theory
 * 4) Attacking atheists
 * 5) Advocating for a single viewpoint
 * 6) Proposes deletion of article

Misconduct

 * 1) Vandalism
 * 2) Peremptory removal of sourced material
 * 3) Ignoring global consensus
 * 4) Gaming the system
 * 5) Personal attacks through casting aspersions without providing evidence, and assuming bad faith (Edited 20:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC))

Evidence

 * 1) Proposed deleting the article, or converting it to a disambiguation or redirect page.
 * 2) Made a major disruptive edit, blanking most of article content.
 * 3) Article no longer included POV template, navigation template (sidebar), table of contents, “See also” section, “Notes” section, any images, any footers, or any categories.
 * 4) Only content retained were the two last sentences of the lead. Made no mention of the article topic.
 * 5) List of other articles, with descriptions, was added
 * 6) Result was not a disambiguation page, a redirect page, a summary article, or even an encyclopedic article.
 * 7) Wdford indicates that the edit was not to improve the article, but leading up to merging it into the Historical Jesus article.
 * 8) Wdford is an experienced editor

Misconduct

 * 1) Vandalism
 * 2) Peremptory removal of sourced material
 * 3) Inappropriate canvassing, by contacting only one side of a dispute
 * 4) Double standards in user conduct
 * 5) Ignoring global consensus
 * 6) Gaming the system
 * 7) Personal attacks through casting aspersions without providing evidence, using dispute resolution as a weapon, disproportionate escalation, assuming bad faith
 * 8) Battleground conduct, attempting to drive off editor through hostile conduct

Evidence

 * 1) Reinstated Wdford's disruptive edit.
 * 2) Started RfC poll: "Should the article on Historicity of Jesus be a full article or a shortened disambiguation article?" Sent RfC only to religion list
 * 3) Claimed that RfC was complying with the spirit of the WP:Deletion policy, and was an appropriate case of WP:IAR. Also said “The article wasn't surviving in its previous state.”
 * 4) Accused me of bad faith in filing a RfM: "Should the blanking of the article be reverted?"
 * 5) Called me “tendentious and difficult” at ANI. Provided no diffs or evidence.
 * 6) Proposed that I be topic-banned, based upon my having filed the RfM, and “stiring up controversey.” Provided no diffs or evidence of misconduct (Resulting topic ban: )
 * 7) Proposed site-banning me, based upon being a “vexatious litigant”, a sockpuppet, engaging in “shit stirring”, disruptive and confrontational editing, posting a frivolous and confrontational RfM, and requesting an IBAN with another editor. Was aware of this pending arbitration. Provided no diffs or evidence of misconduct.
 * 8) Robert McClenon is a very experienced WP editor, who has taken on a role of criticizing other users.

Misconduct

 * 1) Personal attacks through casting aspersions without providing evidence, using dispute resolution as a weapon, disproportionate escalation, and assuming bad faith.
 * 2) Battleground conduct, attempting to drive off editor through hostile conduct.

Evidence

 * 1) Started ANI requesting "reprisals" against me, based on personal grudge. Led to my being topic-banned. (See also  for highlighed version.)
 * 2) Charges:
 * 3) Personal attacks, trolling, promoting fringe theory, battleground, point, disruptive editing.
 * 4) Evidence provided:
 * 5) (No misconduct here.)
 * 6) (My response when he deleted one of my talk page comments. Related to this message he posted on my user talk page:  I had (nor have) no idea who JoshuSatori is. This interaction appears to be the basis for his grudge.
 * 7) Started ANI requesting indefinite block against me, based on a grudge. Purportedly based on my filing this arbitration case, and creating an evidence page to support it.
 * 8) Charges
 * 9) Violating TBAN, personal attacks, attack page
 * 10) Evidence
 * 11)
 * 12) He started the ANI with the belief that I would not be able to respond to it without violating the TBAN. ("his TBAN technically forbids him from responding here.")
 * 13) Ultimately withdrew the block request, but reiterated accusations of personal attacks and attack page, and added charges of sockpuppetry, trolling, fringe pushing, and suggested that I still merited a site ban. Provided no evidence or diffs. Also implied that he was waiting to see how this arbitration works out before again proposing that I be site banned.
 * 14) Posted Miscellany for Deletion request for evidence page in my user space Did not sign request, or notify me.
 * 15) Followed me to another editor's user talk page, and accused me of violating TBAN, personal attacks, trolling, promoting fringe theories, and sockpuppetry. Provided no diffs or evidence. Implied he would continue harassing me if I didn't cease these purported activities.
 * 16) Responded to my ANI request for a mutual IBAN by charging me with disruptive editing, canvassing, violating TBAN, sockpuppetry, personal attacks, attack page, bad faith. Provided no diffs or evidence.
 * 17) Joined in Robert McClenon's ANI request that I be site banned, accusing me of NOTHERE, IDHT, TROLL, FRINGE, BATTLEGROUND, and sockpuppetry. Provided no evidence or diffs.
 * 18) Hijiri88 is an experienced editor. In the past, he has edited as user:Elvenscout742, and under at least 19 other user names.
 * 19) Hijiri88 has initiated at least 17 ANI incidents in the last two years. He has made 197 edits on the ANI page in the same time.

ANI leading to topic ban

 * 1) Ian.Thomson, Hijiri88, and Jeppiz agressively pursued me, throughout an 8 day long ANI, based upon personal grudges. See or (Highlighted version). Also
 * 2) Robert McClendon ultimately proposed that I be topic-banned
 * 3) Very few of the charges made against me in the ANI were backed by evidence, and the little evidence provided did not support the charges. (ibid.)
 * 4) Six of the editors voting in favor of the topic ban (Robert McClenon, John Carter, Ignocrates, Ian.Thomson, Jeppiz, Huon) were involved. Four of the editors in favor of the topic ban were uninvolved. Three editors who were against the topic ban were univolved. There was no consensus of uninvolved editors.
 * 5) Closing administrator did not assess the strength and quality of the arguments made.
 * 6) Closing administrator used my username as a factor in deciding to topic ban me. (ibid.) He later redacted this information, after I told him that my username was based on a fear of real world reprisals for editing controversial articles.
 * 7) The topic ban was substantively unfounded, and procedurally flawed.

Misc Evidence

 * 1) My discussion of revert of the Wdford disruptive edit
 * 2) My 500 word summary of how the article could be improved, as requested by Robert McClenon, with explanation of my concerns with the Wdford disruptive edit:
 * 3) RfC
 * 4) Wdford adding duplicate content

Statement by Kww
''Clerk note: the following statement was presented by Kww at a time when Kww was not a named party, and copied to the case talk page, per procedures. Because Kww is now a named party, this statement is added here''-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that I'm not listed as a party here is a sign that Fearofreprisal's filing was focused on the group of editors he opposes rather than attempting to include all members of the dispute. Keeping that flaw in mind, this is a terrible article, and one that is extremely resistant to repair. While Fearofreprisal has cast too large of a net and made a few accusations about motives that can't be substantiated, there's a long-standing problem of a biased source pool in relationship to this topic. The "historicity" of Jesus of Nazareth is an issue studied not so much by historians as by biblical scholars who, unsurprisingly, are generally Christians that have a predisposition towards interpreting the evidence as being in favour of Jesus's existence. Any effort to try to cast the article in that light (not the light that Jesus did not exist, or that evidence demonstrates that Jesus did not exist, but that the consensus that he did exist needs to be weighed in light of the group that has the consensus) gets shut down quickly. Editors that attempt to discuss bias are subject to false claims of attack and bigotry.

The whole dispute smacks of our problems relating to pseudoscience and the various ethnic disputes, and I suspect it's intractable. Smacking Fearofreprisal around may reduce the current noise level, but will do essentially nothing with respect to fixing the underlying problem.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Mmeijeri
I'm not sure this is the right place for this message, but here it goes anyway. Today I received a courtesy message that a proposed decision had been posted. This is the first I had heard since the start of the process. Until today I had been under the mistaken impression that nothing had happened in this case, even though I had the Arbitration page on my watch list. I thought this was because Fearofreprisal was the only one who really wanted this case and that he had abandoned the process. I had wondered whether I should have mentioned this on the article Talk page. Unfortunately I have therefore not been able to participate in the deliberations. I'm sure this is my own fault, not being very familiar with the procedures, but I suspect others may fall victim to the same circumstances in future. It might be good if a better notification procedure were devised. I also wonder how many of the named participants were aware that discussion was in fact taking place. I'll post a copy of the message on the article Talk page. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by TransporterMan
Allegations have been made here that Fearofreprisal filed a frivolous Request for Mediation. I'm the current Chairperson of the Mediation Committee. I'd simply like to note that unless there is other evidence that Fearofreprisal had improper motives in filing that RFM, that the mere rejection of that case by the Committee should not be taken as evidence of frivolity or bad intent. The case was refused because an RFC was pending, which caused the request to fail to meet Prerequisite to mediation #8: "No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums." RFC is a form of dispute resolution, per the Dispute resolution policy. The fact of the matter is that far more RFM's are refused for failure to meet the Committee's prerequisites than are accepted. The same is true at Dispute resolution noticeboard and, perhaps to a lesser extent, at the Third Opinion project. It is not uncommon in any of those venues for a case to be rejected because of a RFC pending. The fact is that many people simply do not realize that RFC is considered a DR process. Many more simply do not read all the instructions at those forums before filing. I express and have no opinion about whether additional evidence of frivolity or bad intent in the filing of the RFM may or may not exist or, if it does exist, whether or not it is adequate or credible. I also express and have no opinion regarding the other issues raised in this ARBCOM case. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.