User talk:Ignocrates/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Hebrews Good Article Eval

My travel was extended and I just returned. Has the Hebrews GA eval been completed, or can I still be of assistance? My apologies if my delay "let you down". Afaprof01 (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

There is still plenty of time to do a review. Also, please weigh in with an opinion to the question I posed at Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews#Peer review re what to do about a saying attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem. I will fill in the details on the article talk page. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

Racing as the electrician's test has momentrily restored my internet connection after a breakdown of 5 days. If the line is stabilized, will try to get my comments on that page fixed by tomorrow. Sorrow for the procrastination. CheersNishidani (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for letting me know. Ignocrates (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ascents of James.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! RadioFan (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:SALT

Basically, salted means the article is protected from creation so nobody can create an article there unless an admin removes it, which is generally unlikely, especially considering how the article was created before. LionMans Account (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Gross misuse of article talk page, immediate action requested. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggest filing a joint RfC/U about a certain user's violations of NPOV and RS

Hello - I do not know anything about the long-standing dispute between you and John Carter regarding the Gospel of the Ebionites but I am sure he has no understanding of WP:NPOV or WP:WS. I agree with what you say here [1], his idea that he can distinguish between "good, better, best" sources is simple bias, nothing else. Considering he is an admin, I think his total lack of understanding of WP:NPOV may be doing damage to the project and wonder if you would like to file a joint RfC/U on this question only, his biased attitude towards use of reliable sources. Smeat75 (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't had a dispute on the Gospel of the Ebionites article with anyone until John Carter recently appeared on the talk page. You should be aware of this by-invitation-only discussion User:John Carter/Guidelines discussion about creating a Religion MoS that will have it's own set of rules for RS. I explain what's going on in more detail here User_talk:Keilana/Archive15#Requesting mediation help. This is not so much a matter of ignorance as intentional altering of RS guidelines to restrict the use of secondary sources and replace them with a pre-approved (by whom?) list of religious dictionaries and encyclopedias. That said, yes, I will be a co-filer of an RFC/U. I expect it will get a lot of input from the larger Community. Ignocrates (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Smeat75, you should take seriously the threat John Carter made against you on your talk page and also Ret.Prof's talk page with the WP:BOOMERANG references. He is telling you directly that if you pursue this RFC/U he is going to work tirelessly to eliminate you from Wikipedia. Ignocrates (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

If you still want to pursue this, let's talk about it here. John Carter has been requested to stay off this page, so there will be less disruption. Or we can talk about it offline. I don't normally give Wiki editors access to my email, having learned the hard way with John Carter in 2007, but I'm willing to make an exception in this case. You choose. Ignocrates (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to e-mail me if you like, e-mail is enabled on my account but I don't mind talking about it here either. Of course John Carter will see what we say here, but I don't really mind about that, maybe better to do everything in the open rather than risk being accused of plotting in secret. The big issue as far as my idea of a RfC/U is concerned is that, as he has quite rightly said in several responses to me, so far I have nothing but his very tendentious postings about sources on various talk pages and noticeboards and so forth. Do you have examples of where he has prevented or deleted use of sources he does not consider "the best" in actual article space? The reason I got involved in this is because of Ret Prof complaining that he was not being allowed to use Ehrman as a source, I have not trawled through the user contributions looking to see if this is correct, but if you can supply diffs of where Ret Prof or you or anyone else was censored or prevented from using Ehrman or other reliable sources that did not meet John Carter's ideas of "the best" sources, that would be very useful. Thanks, Smeat75 (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Let's keep this discussion public if possible. Ignocrates (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

As a bystander, Smeat75, RetProf has repeatedly discussed Ehrman over and over and had the scholar dismissed. My personal view is that John is familiar with Ehrman's popular writing and when RetProf says he wants to use him as a source, John believes it is from these popular works, not his academic work. I don't know enough about this article to know the specific texts that RetProf wants to utilize. I'm not trying to speak for these folks but it appears to be a disagreement between John, who's saying popular works are no good but doesn't know much about the secondary sources, and RetProf, who believes since Ehrman has done extensive work on the topic, any of his texts are RS.

Unfortunately, much of this discussion has occurred on User Talk Pages which will involve some digging. But you know, if I came across it (and I don't know any of you folks!), it shouldn't be that hard to find. It seems like RetProf has been involved in this argument for at least a year now. Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I saw a guideline that it is bad form to include an editor's username in a heading title so you might want to retitle this section. Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Newjerseyliz, and I have amended the heading title. And thanks to Ignocrates for finding the diffs below,I am reading through them. I have seen several comments from John Carter on talk pages and noticeboards etc indicating that he thinks Ehrman should never be used at all, and gives a variety of silly reasons for that. There will not be any problem finding those, and in my opinion what is said on talk pages and on noticeboards does matter. Is there some sort of policy that only edits to actual articles can be used in RfC/U? I know that before I started editing on WP I spent a lot of time lurking, reading policies and guidelines and talk pages and noticeboards discussions and if I had seen a highly active admin effectively declaring that Ehrman (or another scholar with a similar high reputation) was banned as a source on WP, it would very likely have prevented me from editing a number of articles, or even registering as an editor. Smeat75 (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The Gospel of the Hebrews and I

Leave it on - I'll keep looking in. PiCo (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. If it's any consolation, I was able to edit more effectively upon my return, after I had all remaining sense of idealism for the project crushed out of me. I learned two important lessons from my hellish experiences here: (1) be impeccable with your word (including your edits), and (2) don't take anything personally. Ignocrates (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no point doing this if it's not enjoyable. Can you give me a link to the GHeb review? PiCo (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

No one has started the review yet. Just look at the GAN template at the top of Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews. Ignocrates (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U evidence

I'm creating this section to collect potential exhibits in the form of links or diffs. We can decide later if there is enough evidence to file an RFC/U. Ignocrates (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Here are two diffs that are pretty recent: diff 1, talk diff 1; diff 2, talk diff 2. Both of these deletions by John Carter are complicated to explain, but they illustrate the points you are making. They raise several policy questions related to RS, and there are process issues here as well. Imo, many editors on Wikiproject Christianity will support these two deletions. Ignocrates (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Add two more diffs and talk page diffs: diff 3, talk diff 3; diff 4, talk diff 4. Ignocrates (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That's it for the last 2 1/2 years as far as direct deletions of sourced article content. Strictly speaking, only diff 2 is about WP:RS. The others claim various WP:OR/WP:SYNTH problems, but could be challenged on the basis of WP:PRESERVE. All of the deletions are explained on the talk page. Imo, the problems with these deletions are less a matter of process than whether the correct reasoning was applied to justify the deletions. I suppose that is the point of the RFC/U. Ignocrates (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing directly involving Bart Ehrman as a source or Ret.Prof as an editor, except John Carter's usual demagoguery on noticeboards and the talk pages of articles and editors. You would have to make a case that his ranting is having a chilling effect on other editors or influencing them to make inappropriate edits. Indirect effects are difficult to prove. I think it would take the preponderance of a lot of evidence to convince anyone. Keep in mind that John Carter has been demagoguing like this for 6 years now about all manner of policies and guidelines. The Community just shrugs because 90% of the time he is just beating the wind. Ignocrates (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused Ignocrates because I thought a RfC/U was about user conduct, not content or policy issues. And, to be frank, when I looked at these kinds of RfC/U cases, the decisions were just advisory. I'm not sure anyone will get the definitive decisions that could bring this dispute to an end.

Regarding any Wiki disputes, I'd give you and John the same advice (some of which your proposal already does!):

1. Be focused. Concentrate of no more than 3 modes of behavior or content issues that are under dispute.
2. With your diffs, focus on quality (ones that demonstrate your points) not on quantity. I doubt that any third party will look at dozens of diffs. Keep it to a dozen or less. It could be that additional issues come up through questions that are asked...then it is possible to go into more detail with additional diffs focused on answering those questions.
3. Except for one diff to show how long the conflict has been going on, give recent diffs. I saw one SPI case that went nowhere because none of the other accounts had had recent activity. People settling disputes care about how long disputes have been going on (if it is a continuing problem) but they do NOT want to rehash old battles and sift through the wreckage.
4. This disagreement has gone on for years and traveled across articles, article talk pages and user talk pages. There are individuals who've been against you and who now you can work with amicably. Don't get so caught up in chronicling discord that you forget what has been accomplished through collaboration despite the ongoing conflict. It helps to have those people confirm that you're a teamplayer and can work nicely with others.
5. And unlike me and John, above all be concise. Assume that people reviewing your case are well-intentioned and fair-minded but they don't have an endless amount of time to devote to parsing out all of the details in a long dispute. You have their attention for a limited period of time, don't waste it.

That's my advice, for what it's worth. In the cases I've looked at, I'd say that decisions were based on a combination of a) evidence, b) editor conduct DURING the dispute resolution process (keeping calm and focused is ESSENTIAL) and c) comments from others (admins, editors, negotiators) who make convincing arguments on your behalf or against you. I've seen any one of those three elements completely swing votes over from one side to another. I've seen cases go from being a dispute against one person to end up with sanctions against the accuser (WP:BOOMERANG). It's a dynamic situation. By the way, when I say "dispute resolution" I mean of any kind (RfC, Ani, ARBCOM, DR, etc.) Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Liz, please keep looking in at the process and giving advice if you can, I have never attempted to file an RfC/U before, any advice is appreciated. I think it is a conduct issue, the way John Carter twists and misrepresents WP:RS and does not follow WP:NPOV at all and I feel it is outrageous conduct that he effectively tries to ban the leading New Testament scholar of today from being used as a source for anything. I know RfC/U cannot impose any sort of sanctions and is purely advisory, I hope enough editors and some other admins he respects will tell him he's got it all wrong about WP:RS and WP:NPOV and he will change his conduct.Smeat75 (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for the sage advice! One of the problems presenting this material is that content, policy, and conduct are confounded together in the actual process of editing. It's hard to separate them as though they were principal components. Ignocrates (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've had some time away from the computer to think about this and considered Liz's comments. I think an RFC/U could proceed along one of two lines as follows:

1. Changes to sourced article content that John Carter made directly:

The purpose is to evaluate conduct, so a decision should be made to focus on a single guideline, let's say WP:RS, and ask whether deletion of the material was inappropriate because (1) there was an intentional violation of policy or guidelines, or (2) a mistake was made out of ignorance. I think a case has to be made for one of these alternatives but not both.

2. Comments left on noticeboards, talk pages, etc., that may have indirectly influenced the actions of others:

Examples of these would presumably be specific to WP:RS or WP:NPOV, Bart Ehrman as an author, and Ret.Prof as an editor. I'm skeptical this will go anywhere unless (1) Ret.Prof offers evidence on his own behalf - he has to personally make the case that his editing was disrupted, and (2) there has to be some evidence that the content of an article was affected (something was either done or not done) because of all this ranting on the talk page. Showing examples of John Carter raging away into the ether with the end result of boring everybody to tears won't accomplish anything.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I am willing to co-file an RFC/U based on (1) but merely offer an opinion on (2). Ret.Prof needs to come out of hiding, or back from vacation, or whatever he is currently doing, and personally engage in this process. Ignocrates (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

>Editing at the same time!

First, look at the RfC/U archives ... and this is the list of active cases. You'll notice how few there are. There is more activity at the noticeboards and what you are seeking is enough opinions so that a decision can be made. What you don't want is to go to all of this trouble and time to put together a case and then not have enough participation that something (ANYTHING) gets decided. I mean, if you disagree with the result, there are ways to appeal but no decision at all is the worst kind of decision.

If it is purely an issue about Reliable Sources, there is a noticeboard for that. There is also a noticeboard for NPOV issues but I don't think that is the primary source of your dispute.

If it is a conduct issue, the main ANI board is the place. Be advised, they only consider conduct, they won't make evaluations of content. Personally, this is where I would go if I had to face the level of insults and disparaging remarks you faced, Ignocrates. They deal with issues of Personal Attacks which, to me, seems to be the main problem here (lack of respect and collegiality).

Noticeboards are fairly informal. If you want to present a formal case, then it's Arbitration but they only usually hear cases that have tried every other way of being resolved. They take few requests but they are the ultimate authority in terms of definitive decisions. You've gone a long way with trying to work things out by talking things out on Talk Pages (the first step) and you had a Dispute Mediation (second step), but you probably need to work through a noticeboard or RfC/U before ARBCOM. That's why I'm surprised John keeps talking about his ARBCOM case because he clearly hasn't tried to work things out through lower levels of dispute resolution. As far as I've seen, it's just been accusations and criticism on his part, not attempts to work things out.

Like I said (above), the most important qualities with a successful dispute resolution are preparation, focus, being calm and even-handed, responsiveness to questions, and patience. Above all, focus, try not to get distracted by drama and insults. Also, a lot of cases are declined because the editor posted it to a noticeboard or group that handled another types of disputes. Find the right platform for the problem you are trying to address. I think you might have already used the RS Noticeboard but perhaps that is the best place if you're confining this discussion to issues over sources. Hopefully, some Admins will be looking in and can see the case as it progresses. Newjerseyliz (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi again! I was offering Smeat75 advice, but you are offering me advice. So, there is a bit of a disconnect. I think with respect to article content (assuming you mean the Gospel of the Ebionites) there are only two places left to go: WP:NPOV/N and WP:RFC. The NPOV-section tag is just a straw-man, put there tendentiously to torment me. I can dutifully try these last two options, but it won't matter. The whole point is to drive me off the page by any means necessary. It's not going to happen. Ignocrates (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you decide, Ignocrates. It's not my fight but I hate to see people bullied. I just reread comments on Ret.Prof's Talk Page and found myself getting irate at the way he was driven off Wikipedia because he took unwarranted criticism too much to heart. I really hope he returns.

But I will now move on myself! Time to do some productive work. Newjerseyliz (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

As you can probably tell, I don't get bullied easily. As I said to PiCo (in a section above), two things I learned from all this conflict are the importance of (1) being impeccable with your word (edits), and (2) not taking things personally. Ignocrates (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

With regard to Ignocrates' post starting "OK I've had some time away from the computer" which says basically that filing a RfC/U about John C's "rantings" on noticeboards etc would be a waste of time without Ret Prof - the thing is WP:RFCC says "Minimum requirements -

Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it."

and I was not involved in the dispute about John C removing sourced material from Gospel of the Ebionites or those other diffs supplied so I cannot certify that. I have had numerous conversations with him about Ehrman, but if you think it is just a waste of time the two of us saying that he is pushing a POV, tendentious line on sources on those talk pages etc then I am afraid it looks like we will have to forget my idea of a RfC/U unless or until Ret Prof comes out of retirement and wants to help. With regard to Liz's post at 00:36 I have been at the RSN with him about Ehrman, although I did not take it there, Ret Prof did, and the consensus was that Ehrman was WP:RS, there was a certain amount of incredulity that anyone should even ask the question, but it makes no difference to John C, he just continues to say the same silly things.What he suggested himself was that I go to WT:RSN and raise it there or just start a regular WP:RFC. So I will think about those options.Smeat75 (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Smeat75, if this has already been addressed at RSN and decided, why is it still being debated? It sounds like it was settled in Ret.Prof's favor. Case closed! Newjerseyliz (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually my memory was not exactly right, I took part in a discussion of the question at WP:FTN [2] and there was another one at WP:RSN [3] and yes, it was "settled in Ret. Prof's favor" both times, however John C simply ignores it and continues saying the same things.Smeat75 (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right about finding another way to go. As you say, you were not involved in (1) on the Ebionites article, and the dispute is not active, the 3 other parties to the dispute haven't touched that article in over 2 years. (2) Requires Ret.Prof and a co-editor making a case while the dispute is actually in progress. As for my personal situation on Gospel of the Ebionites, please don't worry about it. I appreciate all the helpful advice. Back to Ehrman. This issue has been to WP:RS many times already (and also WP:FRNG). Going there again will just waste everyone's time, as will a content RFC which John Carter will also ignore. Ok, I need to move on to other matters. See you. Ignocrates (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's been decided, why do you need to go back for another round? Carter isn't even editing the article, why not just use the sources? Newjerseyliz (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Ignocrates. I just came across this ARBCOM case request you all participated in two and a half years ago (and in 2007, too!) so I'm feeling a bit like an idiot. You've gone this route before (twice!) and the same debate has been going on for 6 years. You obviously know a lot more about this than I and I shouldn't have been giving you advice. Newjerseyliz (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That's ok. I welcome your advice anytime. :0) Ignocrates (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Our friend "In ictu oculi" - For Your Information

Our friend, In ictu ocui, has expressed his/her view that mentioning anything about Matthew's Gospel being a Greek translation from an earlier Proto-Matthew (Aramaic source), even by quoting Jerome or Eusebius, etc., would be a violation of the rules of WP:OR and he/she has warned me persistently against making mention of anything which might be considered as a "Primary Source."

So, my question to you is this: Is there any room for mentioning the "development of traditionally held beliefs" regarding the Gospel of Matthew in our current article, or should we keep this information hidden from the public's view? If we mention the early and outdated "theories" or "thoughts" regarding the origin of the Gospel, we can avert his/her opposition to it. What do you think?

If In ictu oculi is an example of propriety on Wikipedia, I do not have the presumption to think that we will ever see an article about Matthew's Gospel devoid of the dogmas of his/her persuasion. Should I take this matter to the DRN?

FOR YOUR INFORMATION:

Note that Jerome writes about Matthew's gospel on this wise (De viris inlustribus, ed. C.A. Bernoulli, III):

"Matthew, also called Levi, an apostle after having been a publican, was the first to compose a gospel of Christ in Judea in Hebrew letters and words for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. But who afterwards translated it into Greek is not sufficiently certain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilius the martyr so diligently collected. From the Nazoraeans who use this book in Beroia, a city of Syria, I also received the opportunity to copy it. In this it is to be noted that where the evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimonies of the old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two (quotations?) exist: 'Out of Egypt have I called my son,' and 'For he shall be called a Nazarene'…"

Eusebius also wrote (hist. eccles. III. 39.16-17):

"…But concerning Matthew, he (Papias) writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the words in the Hebrew-language and every one interpreted them as he was able. [vs.17] And he (Papias) related another story of a woman accused of many sins before the Lord which is available in the Gospel according to the Hebrews (i.e. what is now written in John 8:1-11). These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has already been stated." Davidbena (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Davidbena, I'm sorry I missed your question above. I will take it in two parts: (1) WP:PRIMARY sources may be used, but with care. It is safe to use a primary source as long as you are merely stating the information. An example would be the number of members that currently belong to the Jehovah's Witnesses. The assumption is their organization would have more up-to-date and accurate information than a secondary source. While information from primary sources may be stated, it cannot be summarized, analyzed, or interpreted directly by an editor. That would be considered original research. Rather, those activities must be done through reliable secondary or tertiary sources which are presumed to have professional contributors. (2) WP:DRN is used for disputes over content, and it usually works best if the dispute is between two editors. However, DRN will presume that both editors are acting in good faith and willing to engage in constructive dialogue. That is probably not the case in the example you gave. That said, DNR may be an important step on the road to arbitration because it is a way of documenting a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on the part of one or more parties to the dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Source Criticism

"Source Criticism" is applied to identifying the written sources beneath a given text. As for the existing gospels, particularly Matthew's Gospel, perhaps we can consider addressing this issue briefly in the current article. This will enable us to explore the possibility of Aramaic being the Proto-Matthew? Is Wikipedia ready for such advanced analysis? Of course, in doing so, we would rely strictly upon reputable (academic) "Secondary Sources" that have been published by respected Learning Institutions. Davidbena (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Using Primary Sources

It is not entirely against WP rules to cite "Primary Sources." As a rule of practice, one should cite only reliable "Secondary Sources." However, "Primary Sources" can still be used occasionally. According to WP:PSTS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." The wording here makes it clear that it is still permissible to use "Primary Sources" if the situation calls for it. Davidbena (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but given that the primary sources often quote, fragmentarily, obscure primary primary sources, and huge controversies or differences of opinion exist over the interpretation of each and every fragment, in the area of ancient literature, if you use primary sources of any kind unadorned with mainstream contextual references, you will almost ineludibly run into POV problems. One needs a local guide or scout to walk over a minefield, otherwise editors who venture there will end up like those Siberian units the Russians ordered to walk over dangerous enemy territory: most of them were blown up, but the regular ethnic Russian troops could then comfortably advance without high casualties.Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Davidbena, please keep discussions about the Gospel of Matthew and related pages off my talk page, per my notice of recusal above. The only reason I intervened on the article talk page was to prevent a new editor from being railroaded off Wikipedia. What's going on there is not due to a lack of understanding. Your efforts to educate the editors on that page won't accomplish anything because they already "know" what is right. That's why I walked away from those pages in utter frustration. Sorry I can't be more responsive, but I have other battles to fight; I'm going to arbitration in a week. I honored Nishidani's request and waited until September, but all that accomplished was allowing John Carter to disrupt another article. Ignocrates (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Question of Clarification

Ignocrates. I'm not sure what you mean by the word "revert." Reversion can mean "returning to the previous topic." In this case, doesn't it mean to go back over an article already published on Wikipedia and suggest how that article can be improved? Davidbena (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I have just explained this on your talk page. If you need additional clarification, ask the Help Desk and they may be able to provide you with additional examples. Ignocrates (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gospel of the Hebrews

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gospel of the Hebrews you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Pyrotec -- Pyrotec (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

GoH GA

Congratulations :) PiCo (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel like Christmas came early this year! I hope I'm still around to do more of these. Ignocrates (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Blanked at the request of Carcharoth per Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Proposed decision#Case closing. Ignocrates (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#John Carter and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ignocrates (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

So, it's come to this now? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I read your comments. Thanks for weighing in on the request page. What keeps being glossed over in these discussions is that John Carter and I were on the same side in the 2007 dispute, and I only became involved with the article again in 2010 because he came to me and asked me to help improve it.

John Carter hasn't added any sourced content to articles in years (he tags articles and deletes content). This has resulted in major issues over the years with "I don't like it, so why don't you fix it" over the broad category of religious articles. There is a real problem here with a lack of accountability. Ignocrates (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

PiCo's message box

For messages, discussions, bull-shooting, and whatever else strikes our fancy. Ignocrates (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

PiCo, we should resume our editing as soon as arbitration closes to continue improving the content of the Gospel of the Hebrews article. Please think about next steps in the meantime. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Personal stuff

Hmm.... This is valid point raised by arbitrator. But here is my question: why did not you edit anything on-wiki in the area of Biochemistry if you have a PhD degree there (or in area of statistical analysis)? Or maybe you did? And what exactly did you do in real life in Biochemistry and statistical analysis? Of course you have no obligation to answer my question... My very best wishes (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The answer is quite simple. I don't want to write about things I think about all day long. I enjoy writing about some of my hobbies. Textual criticism happens to be one of them because I like the analytical puzzle it provides. Ignocrates (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. First of all, I accept you answer per WP:AGF. I personally feel the same (you may look at my userpage). Still, I was unable to avoid editing in the area of my expertise: when I see a mistake, I fix it, which usually does not require a lot of time, like here. I think you understand what was behind my question. Some people here pretend that they are not who they really are; and it rises suspicions when they do not edit at all in the area they claim to be experts. In your place, I would make a few edits in the area of Biochemistry, just to show your expertise and improve encyclopedia. But whatever. Actually, I have an obligation to accept your answer per WP:AGF. My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, but the many years I spent as a bench scientist including my post-doc were enough for me. I have moved on. The data mining technology I have developed is all proprietary. I'm not about to disclose it. Hope this helps. Ignocrates (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You must really hate science - Smiley. My very best wishes (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. I have two kids on that track like Keilana. I just needed a new challenge and I like complex multivariate problems. :0) Ignocrates (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am just getting curious and trying to be systematic. What your PhD thesis and postdoctoral research was approximately about? Of course you should not answer this if you have concern about your privacy... My very best wishes (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I did my graduate and postdoctoral research on regulatory signals for the initiation of mRNA translation - this is ancient history (like me) from the mid to late '70s. Ignocrates (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This is insufficently specific, but it does not really matter. For me, the bottom line is this: (a) all contributors who contribute positively to the project must be respected, even if they edit only a narrow set of pages, and (b) all admins who are really active in their administrative capacity (and JC certainly is - he frequently appears even on WP:AE) must show good example to others, always control themselves and exercise good judgement and understanding of policy - JC fails these standards. My very best wishes (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:POV Railroad

Hi Ignocrates, and thanks for you good comments at POV Railroad talk page. I have responded and your further comments are welcomed. However, I see you are involved in arbcom so if you don't have time. That is also OK. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm staying off article pages until arbitration closes and my editing restrictions, if any, are implemented by ArbCom. My hope is that arbitration will result in an I-ban which will remedy my stalker problem. Ignocrates (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Blanked at the request of Carcharoth per Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Proposed decision#Case closing. Ignocrates (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ebionites 3 workshop page

Hi Ignocrates, for an accusation like this I would expect that there be some compelling evidence that John had sent email to other parties. However in the diff you provided that is not clear. So I would ask that you either substantially rewrite that section or remove it entirely. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Ignocrates (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

History of scholarship on Jewish-Christian gospels

Hi Ig. Thanks for the kind heads-up, but to be perfectly honest, I don't want to get any more involved with Wikipedia than I am. In fact I want to get rather less involved. My personal project is to bring a common format to the main Old Testament books, and I've just about finished that now - only Job is untouched, and I'll probably leave it alone. In other news, in the real world, a UK publisher is expressing interest in a pitch for a real-life book about the supernatural world as experienced in Cambodia: I'll begin with how a the Chief of Police, victim of a helicopter crash in typically murky Cambodian circumstances, (the copter blew up in mid-air during a thunderstorm - tragic accident, lightening strike with supernatural overtones, assassination?), and turned into a ghost, begging for food in the village next to the rice paddy where his body was found (in pieces). Much, much more interesting than Wikipedia, don't you think?  :) PiCo (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like a great opportunity. Much, much more interesting than discussing whether Wikipedia civility policy discourages condescending behavior. Thanks for letting me know. :0) Ignocrates (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

email question

Hello Ignocrates,

I was looking at the option to send you an email message through your User page, but I don't see that option available. If you are so inclined, that option should be available to you on my own User page. I'd appreciate your contact. Regards, warshy^¥¥ 17:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I have already learned a hard lesson about responding to other people's emails that has been plaguing me since 2007. So, before I respond, tell me what this is about. Ignocrates (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for any unpleasant email experiences you may have had. I just had some questions about possible publication venues for historical research. Regards, warshy^¥¥ 17:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

That's quite alright. I should have kept that to myself. Unfortunately, I am not a professional historian, so I don't know about possible publication venues for historical research. Sorry. Ignocrates (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand than, from your reply, that you think that only "professional historians" can or should publish historical research. If my understanding is correct, than I think you've answered my question, and I appreciate your answer. Thank you, be well, warshy^¥¥ 19:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 1, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh man, that's hilarious: "John Carter shall be warned that repeat attempts to enlist the support of ArbCom to impose discretionary sanctions without compelling evidence will result in possible sanctions" (diff). Now, based on that your statement, your opponent will blame you of WP:BATTLE. Honestly, that reminds me The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovich Quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich... My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I see your point and I will fix it. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Good luck! I was there too. I would recommend making as few comments and suggestions on workshop as possible, better none. BTW, I will probably try to retire from editing here, at least for a while (this is totally unrelated to anything on-wiki, but only to my real life issues).My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Once again, writings by Nikolai Gogol were proven immortal [4][5]. BTW, I thought what would be the best general strategy for surviving arbitrations? I think this is one applied by Gen. Mikhail Kutuzov who simply disappeared with his army and waited until French Army left Moscow during severe winter... (meaning the end of the arbitration) My very best wishes (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw those statements. I have said all I intend to say in Workshop, other than to respond to "questions". I will leave it to others to fill in the blanks. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration workshop

By the way, after reading Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Workshop#Dispute resolution timeline, since, as far as I know, you initiated all attempts at dispute resolution (RfCs, RSN, DR, etc.), it seems like you would have a good knowledge of previous attempts to resolve the conflict in question. Right now, it seems like the view is that this is a pitched battle between an Editor and Admin and proper notice isn't being given to the times where you listened to criticism and responded or tried to find a resolution to specific differences of opinion. Mediation is mentioned but I didn't realize that it failed because a mediator wasn't available. But just in the few months I've been watching these articles, it seemed like you repeatedly tried to bring in other Editors to weigh in, in order to come to a resolution on matters of dispute. These should be noted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Liz, I can track down all of those previous attempts at dispute resolution, and you are correct that I initiated all of them. However, it isn't clear where to include that documentation or if the Arbs even care about those efforts at this point. Ignocrates (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• "There are also several noticeboard discussions that help provide context (a comprehensive list of these would help) and talk page requests for comments..." Carcharoth

From the section I linked to, this seems like an invitation for you or John (or both) to provide a list of all of the noticeboard discussions and RfCs (maybe even the proposed RfC/U if you ever filed that). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I have added a list of attempts at dispute resolution for the Gospel of the Ebionites article. Ignocrates (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted

Hi Ignocrates this is purely a courtesy message to make sure you're aware that the proposed decision on the Ebionites 3 case has been posted. The remedy which affects you is this one, which institutes a mutual interaction ban between yourself and John Carter. Please make any comments on the talk page, the guide to arbitration may also be of assistance. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Blanking talk page archive sections

Following the notes I left at the arbitration proposed decision talk page, Could you please blank the following pages or sections in your talk page archives:

• The entirety of User talk:Ignocrates/Archive 2.
• The following sections of User talk:Ignocrates/Archive 4: 'Misc', 'Opinion please' and 'Incident log'.
• The following sections of User talk:Ignocrates/Archive 5: 'Misc links', 'Arbitration evidence'.

Feel free to leave a note in place of the content saying they were blanked at my request following this arbitration case. The material contained there will still be available to others in the page history if they wish to access it, but carrying out these blankings (I will be asking John Carter to do something similar) will, I hope, go a long way to bringing a form of closure here, helping you both to move on. Carcharoth (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Ignocrates (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3 closed

An arbitration case regarding the Ebionites has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Ignocrates (talk · contribs) and John Carter (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with each other (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
2. John Carter (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Ebionites, broadly construed.
3. John Carter (talk · contribs) requested removal of his administrator rights on 1 November 2013, while these arbitration proceedings were in progress (log of removal). John Carter may regain these rights only through a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Off break

I'm taking a break to clear my mind of arbitration. I will check in here periodically, but I may be slow to reply. Many thanks to everyone who put in a good word for me. Va bene! :0) Ignocrates (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm back from break but may still be slow to reply for a few weeks due to RL circumstances. Ignocrates (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Stepping Back

Let me apologize. When I said I was stepping back from the Gospel of Matthew I meant I would no longer edit the article. However I will abide by your broader interpretation and no longer participate on the talk page. I hope you will see that WP is followed re reliable sources. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC) PS I have no problem with those who oppose my position. They may even be right! My concern is they have no reliable sources to support their position.

I'm just surprised to see you arguing on the talk page when you said you were walking away from it. Ignocrates (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree! I trust you will promote Wikipedia Policy regardless of your POV! I am going to stay totally away from the Gospel of Matthew Cheers! - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I really do believe the Oral gospel tradition is of greater importance. Look forward to working with you. Note I finally restored your deletion re the German. Hope this does not upset In Ictu. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration 2

Wow! I had reconciled myself that the fact that I was about to be banned at Wikipedia. Given the choice of being banned by ANI or arbitration, I felt that arbitration would give me the best chance for a fair hearing. I had been warned by several editors of "the way the ANI process has been compromised in the past". Your comment sounded like I should take the offensive??? How would that work? Thanks for once again thinking outside the box! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, please understand that ArbCom will not touch any issues related to content; these include WP:RS and WP:FRINGE for evaluation of sources or WP:NPOV for a perceived anti-Jewish bias. The places to go to address those concerns are WP:RS/N, WP:FT/N or WP:NPOV/N, respectively. With respect to editor conduct, ArbCom's mandate is to prevent disruption of the encyclopedia, not to decide who is right or what is "true". In my own arbitration case, I asked for an interaction ban because I knew that would "break the back" of a long-running dispute and prevent future disruption. Anything else that happened in that case was a consequence of the arbitration process itself. Ignocrates (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Second, as the final stop in the dispute resolution process, the arbs will immediately want to know what previous attempts have been made to resolve the dispute, why those haven't worked, and why further attempts outside of arbitration are unlikely to be effective. You will need to provide detailed evidence in the form of links and/or diffs to previous attempts at dispute resolution. This has to happen as soon as you initiate the request for arbitration. You also have to name the other involved parties to the dispute and notify them accordingly on their talk pages. Ignocrates (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Third, as the filer of the case, you will need to submit an opening statement upon initiating the request, or soon after, which provides some background of the history of the dispute. You don't need to provide detailed evidence yet - that will happen during the Evidence phase, assuming the case is accepted - but representative examples in the form of diffs are often included as part of the case history. You will also need to explain what you are asking ArbCom to do, i.e., what action do you wish the arbs to take to prevent future disruption? For example, I presented the recent history of the dispute in my own arbitration case, but I didn't do a very good job of explaining what I hoped to achieve by bringing the dispute to arbitration. That came out during subsequent questioning by the arbs, but it should have been part of my initial statement. Ignocrates (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Finally, if the case is accepted, you will be expected to make arguments supported by detailed evidence in the form of diffs during the Evidence phase that can be brought forward during the Workshop phase to provide findings of fact. The "findings" should to be used to support principles that are grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines (e.g., see the WP:5 pillars), and you can propose remedies based on those principles that tie back to the actions you asked ArbCom to take in your opening statement. Ignocrates (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Question: If I could produce solid evidence of a POV Railroad removing Jewish material Christian articles and further evidence of a Jewish editor being treated poorly for trying to show the Jewish roots of the Gospels would ArbCom have jurisdiction to imposed a T-Ban against all the members of the POV Railroad? Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If the evidence is compelling that there was and is a systematic attempt to discourage certain editors from contributing to Wikipedia based on their ethnicity and/or religious beliefs, that would likely result in a topic ban if not a site ban. However, the burden of proof will be high to make allegations of that nature stick; circumstantial evidence will not do. Ignocrates (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

T Ban

I have been hearing back form a number of Crats and Admins who have been advising me. Their advice "Don't fret over it too much", & I "don't have anything to worry about". I am in a very strong position as long as I do not do anything stupid. ie (sit back and shut up) You have given me similar advice in the past LOL Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I would take a step back and think it over. The arbitration process typically takes 6 to 8 weeks, and I can tell you from experience that the pressure of that sustained scrutiny can be intense at times. If you elect to proceed, do so knowing that you have chosen the nuclear option to dispute resolution. Ignocrates (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Will do. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Recusing myself again

I am recusing myself from editing on the Gospel of Matthew article and current or future articles that have anything to do with lost or hypothetical Hebrew Gospels of whatever. Also, any current or future articles about Oral gospel traditions or Christian oral traditions generally. Please don't post on my talk page about any of these topics. Ignocrates (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the correction you left on my talk page. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The point of recusing myself is to minimize my interactions with you. Yet, here you are, again. I'm done with attempting to explain or defend your actions to others. You are on your own now. Ignocrates (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I probably need a break too. I will do my best minimize my interactions with you. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but I'm getting really tired of feeling like I'm acting as your apologist. You need to be able to defend your own actions, and I'm not going to come to the rescue if you can't do that. It's not personal. Ignocrates (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do not go reading all sorts of stuff into my taking a break. I do not like conflict. I found the ANI brutal. I am exhausted and need a break from all the conflict. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew and resolution

I've left a message on RetProf's talk page asking him to contact the mediation panel and find a person - that way he won't feel he's being railroaded yet again. PiCo (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you look at the draft on my Talk page and see if you like it? When you're happy we'll show it to RetProf and see if he's also happy, and then to In Ictu.

For a dispute to be accepted, all the editors involved have to be notified and have to accept mediation. So we have to work out who the "editors involved" are. In Ictu for sure. Eusebeus. Tgeorgescu. Davidbena, sure. But Til? I don't think he's ever edited the page. If RetProf wants to run this by him, sure, but I don't think he can be listed as an involved party. Anyway, that's down the track a bit. Please let me know for now what you think of the draft. PiCo (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW, Til has gotten himself banned for a week as of today.PiCo (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, new revision for you to look at on the Talk page. I'll alert RetProf as well. PiCo (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Et si le petit lapin ne veut pas grignoter la choux?PiCo (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently not. Maybe cabbage gives him gas. Ignocrates (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

True, all us old guys get gas when we are exhausted. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 February 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, User:Sunray (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Request

Ignocrates, I agree with your conclusion on Talk:Matthew that the consensus on Wikipedia is as you have described so well and so succinctly on that thread. I will not pursue the issue further, other than request that the door for dialogue remain open in the distant future, in the event that other definitive research can be produced with convincing analysis, in which case, we will make these findings known to the editors for their review and re-assessment. Meanwhile, the current article Gospel of Matthew is good, and hardly needs revising. The view taken by the editors is, indeed, the contemporary view of most scholars of biblical text criticism. It was a pleasure debating this issue with the WP team. All the best!Davidbena (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

David, I appreciate your letting me know. Scholarly views may change in the future and if so we can revisit this issue. Also, even though the GoM article accurately reflects the current consensus, a new article on the historiography of this debate would be a valuable addition to the encyclopedia. In such an article, the views of accomplished scholars from the late 19th to early 20th century like Theodor Zahn would be highly relevant and have major weight within their appropriate time period in history. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: BOLD

I think your BOLD move is fine. There are other participants aside from Ret. Prof who haven't had a chance to comment on the latest discussion, so let's leave the mediation open for a bit longer. Andrevan@ 17:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Gospel of Mark

Thanks for the flattering words and the invitation on Gospel of Mark, but I'm not prepared to commit the time to Wikipedia. Believe me, there's more useful things to be done in the real world! PiCo (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's probably pointless anyway. I'm looking forward to an extended break from Wikipedia. Ignocrates (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Gospel of Matthew

The discussion does seem to have died down. I noticed that the version in the article is missing the "Many scholars have held..." bit, even though it seemed like everyone in the mediation supported that line. I'm a little uncomfortable about closing the mediation on that note since it sort of looks like we are not giving those proceedings justice here. Andrevan@ 02:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Considering the intensity of opposition to doing anything at the beginning of mediation, I think it went extraordinarily well. Most of the involved editors don't really support the solution - they are indicating that by their silence - but these are veteran editors who realize there is a greater good being done here. I would take to heart Voltaire's famous quote that "perfect is the enemy of good" and leave it at that. In any case, I am off for a long break and I won't be checking my talk page. Ignocrates (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I just read over Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, such a struggle over two sentences in an entire article. I'm glad that I don't edit in such contentious areas like early Christianity. It seemed like 1/3 of the way through, most editors agreed on a version, then the mediation went to hell (veered off-topic), then multiple versions were tweaked without any getting majority support. I hope you're enjoying your break. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the tiny compromise we worked out was the best outcome that could be achieved under the circumstances. The mediator was very quick to pick up on the real problem, which is intractable. Ret.Prof needs to stay off this article, period. Otherwise, his deficiencies as an editor will continue to be used as straw-man reasons to maintain the status quo of suppressing the minority view that there was an original Aramaic or Hebrew document of some sort which became associated by tradition with Matthew the Evangelist. Believe me, there are days when I'm ready to file an arbitration case and pull this problem out by the roots. Then I quickly come to my senses and realize it's not worth the personal sacrifice that would require. See ya. Ignocrates (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to take a break. I am going to leave the mediation open and see if people return to it; Athenekos has left a proposal there and people can comment on it there. Many of the participants in this mediation were combative and troublesome, but naming names really isn't very productive, and Ret. Prof was certainly not the one who was most disruptive. Let's go forward to building consensus instead of trying to find the culprit. Andrevan@ 03:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings from...

Do you know what I'm doing right now? I'm sitting on the second-floor balcony of the Foreign Correspondents' Club in Phnom Penh, overlooking the Mekong, having just had a nice hommus dip with home-baked bread and not one but two glasses of an Australian pinot. Never let anyone tell you that Cambodia is all bad. So WTF am I editing effing Wikipedia on subjects biblical? Effed if I know. Possibly, very possibly, it's because when I hit writers bock, that's what I do, turn to the Internet. Wiki is actually quite a good training exercise, for research, organising thoughts, and creating concision where none existed. Nevertheless, it remains an immense and eternal waste of one's time. I shall retire again, never fear. Surely you too have better things to do? I say this as a friend. PiCo (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

That's awesome! Some guys have all the fun. I also have little time for Wikipedia these days. I'm spending my free time working through the foundations of quantum mechanics (Heisenberg through Dirac) using Lie Groups and quaternion algebra. I'm not sure that's better use of my time, but it keeps me off the streets at night. Ignocrates (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (August 2014)

I have started Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ignocrates.John Carter (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration 3

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Incompetent editor who pushes Fringe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ret.Prof (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller

Any chance you could reconsider your statement about me? I didn't act as an Admin as I didn't delete anything, I just turned Christian Oral Tradition into a redirect to Oral gospel traditions, something anyone could do. I'm not clear why you said I deleted it or acted as an Admin. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, I have amended my statement to say the article was redirected rather than deleted. I remember the incident well, and I recall that you were acting in your capacity as an admin. A normal editor would not unilaterally blank an article by redirect; they would seek a consensus before acting. Ignocrates (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That's just plain wrong. I was acting as an editor, I was not using my tools. Any editor can be WP:BOLD (ie acting without discussion) and redirect, and I wouldn't have edit warred over it. If anyone objected they could have reversed me or started an RfC. You may remember it well but I don't so can't recall if there was a consensus or not. Admins are only acting as Admins when they are using their tools, enacting topic bans when appropriate, etc. I wish people would differentiate between an Admin acting in their role as an Admin and an Admin acting in their ordinary role as an editor. Other editors come to me asking me to make decisions when I simply can't do that, I can only advise. Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't blow this out of proportion. I see you left a response for me at ArbCom, and that should be enough for now. Assuming the case is accepted, all of these redirects are going to be reviewed. I was giving you a heads up in response to your question at ArbCom. That's all. Ignocrates (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined as withdrawn

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that the Misconduct in the Christianity topic case request has been declined as withdrawn. You can review the original case request here. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: involved

It certainly does not make me "involved." The comment is not on content but about process and policy, and done in the context of informal mediation requested by participants. Andrevan@ 15:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: "agency"

Informal mediation is just that - informal. It breaks the rules and only offers constructive advice and information. Nobody has to agree to my participation -- anyone may make a constructive comment on a talk page. You'll note that my comment offered the likelihood that Ret. Prof was reading too much into the gospel-written-in-Hebrew story based on Casey's actual words, and then based on that he apparently conceded this relatively significant contextual point and simply wishes to use an earlier chronology - a completely different thing? There is no agency or advocacy relationship, informal or no, but I would like a "successful" mediation to stay resolved. It's true that Ret. Prof asked for my help, but the other participants also asked for my help in the original mediation. More to the point though I think your tone is combative, and your stance has been unhelpful for some time. If Ret. Prof has essentially conceded the point, the mediation is over. Andrevan@ 07:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh and if you want to have this conversation, I use talk pages in the way that the MediaWiki software supports. Andrevan@ 07:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: stance

What I think is an issue is your angry mastodon reaction to the dispute and my participation. The idea that I might be somehow partial to Ret.Prof's position is strange to me. Or is there something I don't understand? I am assuming that Ret. Prof is simply a well-meaning scholar attempting to soften the majority POV where there are well-referenced positions that say other things, and I certainly see a lot of article ownership to preserve this status quo. NPOV will trump a consensus if that consensus is flying in the face of another POV - the appropriate weight policies do not allow zero weight for a reliable theory, especially for a topic like religion which is highly speculative even by the most mainstream thinkers. The thing takes on a different light if Ret.Prof IS Maurice Casey, for example, and we are looking at self-promotion. Andrevan@ 07:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Gospel of Matthew. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

On break and future plans

I'm on break from editing article content. I need to step back from content creation until I can WP:DGAF again. I can contribute very productively in that mode. With respect to DRN, arbitration, etc., I'm available if needed. My longer term plan is to pull back from the religion category gradually and leave it behind. I'm going to switch to some aspect of science, but I haven't decided on the topic yet. Ignocrates (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case

If a case is going to be filed it should be submitted by early October, say the week of Oct 5 - 11. It can take up to two weeks for the arbs to review all the opening arguments and decide whether to take a case. If they choose to accept it, plan on an additional 6 to 8 weeks to go through all the steps to reach a final decision. I would like to get this wrapped up by early December to avoid running into arbitration elections and people leaving for the holidays. The plan is to file a two-person case, just me and Ret.Prof, to keep the collateral damage to a minimum. As the filing party, the burden is on me to lay out the merits of the case, provide a brief history of the dispute, and propose a remedy. Anyone is free to give an opening statement and discuss the merits of a case filing. Please keep it concise and to the point.

If you want to provide detailed evidence after the case is accepted, you will need to include yourself as an involved party. Becoming "involved" carries risks. The behavior of all involved parties may be examined under a microscope. That's not to be taken lightly. Obviously, I'm willing to take on that risk as the filing party. The next step is for me to do the hard work of going through the history of the dispute and digging up the diffs I will need to prosecute the case. Prevailing means the arbs will enact a remedy to prevent future disruption and I won't lose my skin in the process. We shall see. No good deed goes unpunished on Wikipedia. Ignocrates (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with DRN or posturing to gain leverage in a content dispute. There is a long-term problem here; anyone who has been around the category of religious articles for any length of time knows it. I feel that the successful formal mediation was the last straw. If resolving the content problem was going to end the associated editor conduct problem, it should have happened by now. Obviously it hasn't, and there's no reason to believe the underlying problem will get better without intervention. Ignocrates (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

One more thing. I'm posting all this here to be as open and transparent as possible. I don't want to have even the appearance of coordinating with other parties. If people have questions about how to proceed, I will be happy to point you to publicly available information. I won't make suggestions or answer questions about what you should do. Ignocrates (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Advice or collusion?

Ret.Prof, I'm responding to a note you left on your talk page. diff You mention several people are working with you behind the scenes to help you prepare for arbitration. In that case, how can I or the Committee have any confidence that you are representing yourself and not just acting as a mouthpiece for the thoughts of others? That's not advice; it's collusion. Please identify the unknown "advisers" that are helping you and putting words into your mouth. Ignocrates (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for respecting my talk page. I appreciate your posting here. Now do not get paranoid on us. There is no conspiracy or collusion.

Andrevan made the following statement to you: Your interactions are colored by this comment you made to Ret. Prof in Feb: "I think you should honestly ask yourself why you continue to spend time here and whether your efforts are helping or hindering the improvement of this encyclopedia." Is that still how you feel about it? Why would he look to you for support on this?

Your response was, "If you still don't understand that I am generally supportive of Ret.Prof's efforts here, there's probably nothing more I can say to convince you."

That really, really bothered me. Then I started to review your advice over the past few years and how every time I listened to you I landed in trouble. I came to believe you were manipulating me! If that were true maybe your suggestion that I request arbitration would not end well. Maybe you were setting me up to be banned at Wikipedia??? (I also found John Carter's affirmation that you were "a kind of tutor to Ret.Prof" most unsettling.)

I re read Andevan's statement! He indicated that my request was ill-advised. He stated "I think we can definitely solve some of these problems through frank discussion and maybe some informal mediation." I listened to him and withdrew my request. I truly believe he saved me. I will always be thankful! - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ret.Prof, I'm only going to say this once. I invested three years of my time trying to help you become a better editor. To have you now say that I was just manipulating you disgusts me. It's good to get this out in the open though. I no longer have any reason to hold back in arbitration. Ignocrates (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your goal is now and always has been as follows: "I think you should honestly ask yourself why you continue to spend time here and whether your efforts are helping or hindering the improvement of this encyclopedia." Now that you have been "outed" I think I have a fighting chance. You behavior toward the Mediator at our Informal Mediation will not help your cause! Nor will the fact that you used arbitration to undermine our 'dispute resolution'! Don't get me wrong ! I do not want this to go to arbitration yet. But I am now prepared. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC) PS Well almost!

You told us you would give us until next week to prepare. Does your word mean nothing!!! - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Who is this "us" Ret.Prof? Did you find a way to clone yourself? Just wondering. Ignocrates (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I am gaining a little weight. LOL Obviously our little spat has not gone unnoticed! It would probably be a good idea for us both to take a deep breath & think about what we are doing. Maybe Andrevan or Guy Macon may have some good advice. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You go ahead and take a deep breath, and think about what you are doing. I'm inclined to act, and the sooner the better. There's no need to continue this conversation, or have any other conversation prior to arbitration. Ignocrates (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Working out our differences

Ret.Prof, you said on Guy Macon's talk page that you want to "work out our differences before arbitration", so here's your chance to prove it. I'm filing for arbitration - nothing can stop that - but I'm willing to negotiate on the proposed remedy. Proposal #1: you agree to (1) be assigned a mentor and put on probation, and (2) accept an indefinite targeted topic ban from articles related to a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew broadly construed. If you agree to these remedies in the request for arbitration, I will ask the Committee to implement them by motion, and we can save ourselves a lot of pain. For example, you can resume your work on the three articles on your user page, User:Ret.Prof/Celsus; User:Ret.Prof/Jesus in the_Talmud; and User:Ret.Prof/Josephus on Jesus; and prove to your mentor and the community as a whole that you can work consensually with others and you are here to build a better encyclopedia. If not, there is Proposal #2: we proceed to a full case, with all that it entails, and I ask that you be banned from Wikipedia indefinitely. How do you want to proceed? Ignocrates (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Not an unreasonable suggestion. Let me cool down from diff and we will see what can be done. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I am pleased that you are finally taking the time to try to settle our differences. However we seemed to have worked most of our problems. Indeed our as far as I am concerned everything has been resolved. Yet you seem to be holding a grudge…why? In any event your proposal was a little too one sided for me to accept. - Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's important for you to understand that I'm not holding a grudge of any kind. I'm deeply disappointed to see you write that I was just manipulating you for three years. Who wouldn't be? That said, I think a little introspection is in order. Look back over your record here. For all your talk of compromise and trying to reach a consensus, how many times have you really compromised on anything? How many times have you worked with another editor to help them develop their ideas? It's got to be a very small number. On the contrary, you act as though a consensus, even an overwhelming consensus, is merely an obstacle to be overcome. Thus the Gandhi-like passive resistance that you advocate on your user page. This is the root of the problem, imo, and it won't change without intervention. Ignocrates (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm disappointed, but not surprised, to see you reject my proposal. It's unsurprising that you didn't respond with a counter-proposal either. Anyway, I will have the case filed by the end of the week. Ignocrates (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as your proposal is concerned, I plan to work on User:Ret.Prof/Celsus; User:Ret.Prof/Jesus in the_Talmud; and User:Ret.Prof/Josephus on Jesus; anyway. I have moved on. What I took issue with was being assigned all the blame! Simply not so. Hopefully we will not lock horns ever again. If we do, then that would be the time for arbitration! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)PS At this point all disputes have been resolved.

You are not being assigned all the blame. Not by me anyway. There's no question in my mind that you have been bullied at times. I have said that repeatedly. Also, I think there is a grey area between WP:STEWARDSHIP, which is a good thing, and WP:OWNERSHIP which is not. It's easy to forget what side of the line you are on in the heat of an argument. Ignocrates (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

As I have been preparing, I found the most vicious personal attacks have not been on me but rather Andrevan the mediator. Go figure. John was no fan of the mediator either. Your best line was when you referred to him as Satan's younger stupider brother! LOL My plan is to try to stay out of your way (I have a healthy respect for your wrath) but if we do go to arbitration I do feel I will be able to hold my own. I think PICO will dodge the bullet. In the end so much will have to do with who are the arbitrators. I predict no less than four bans will be handed out. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Conduct unbecoming an admin. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)