Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Blanking of the Historicity of Jesus page

Blanking of the Historicity of Jesus page

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Robert McClenon (talk · contribs)
3. Wdford (talk · contribs)
4. Hijiri88 (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Historicity of Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Evading_WP_article_deletion_policy

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

1. Should the blanking of the article be reverted?

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Disagree There is already an RFC open on this topic. User:Fearofreprisal apparently chose to open this RFM when his earlier RFC started turning against him. This kind of WP:IDHT attitude implies Fearofreprisal hasn't read prerequisite 5 in WP:RFM/G: No involved editor is unwilling to engage meaningfully and constructively in mediator-directed discussion or to genuinely consider compromise and concession. Compromise is an integral part of mediation, and of editing Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Disagree - An RFC is in process, and the filing party is apparently trying to use mediation to avoid having to deal with consensus. Also, at this point, after having tried very long and hard to assume good faith by all parties, I am no longer willing to assume good faith, and I reserve the right to use WP:ANI or to request arbitration. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Reject. Fails Prerequisite to mediation #8: "No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums." RFC is a form of dispute resolution, see the Dispute Resolution Policy. For the Mediation Committee. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC) (Chairperson)