Archive 8 (2015)

		Thanks for all the mentoring!
		Thanks for all of your help and advice over the past year. I have been saved many times! Cheers, Ret.Prof (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There may be systemic bias towards a certain modern prevailing academic view on a number of articles about the early Christian Gospels. However, I am not well-versed enough in the topic to tangle with what appears to be a bunch of retired theologians and seminary school teachers, and there definitely does seem to be a consensus that your particular set of views are several standard deviations outside the norm. There is ArbCom precedent that, for example by the Transcendental Meditation editors, suppressing minority well-referenced viewpoints can be a major NPOV problem and grounds for topic bans, etc. I have not kept up with this in the last year or so, but I will note that the Gospel of Matthew article does state clearly that "a few scholars hold that some of these source documents may have been Greek translations of older Hebrew or Aramaic sources" and that "Most scholars agree, following what is known as the "Marcan hypothesis",[7] that the authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source when writing their gospels after the Gospel of Mark was completed (written 60-75 CE)," as well as explain about the situation as to how the modern books were constructed from a composite, etc. This seems like a treatment of the issue which acknowledges the existence of minority viewpoints. I don't think it is necessarily undue weight to discuss minority viewpoints in further depth, but I would wonder why years and years of your life are being spent litigating the weight of your particular viewpoint. I will admit that my sympathies were with you as being picked-on by the group in some particularly bitey and unpleasant ways, and I think there were some fairly substantial issues with the treatment of the subject before. However, I think you misrepresented to me that you were acting as a secular seeker of truth and balance when in fact you are a fervent believer in Hebrew Matthew in a religious sense. I do think the examples of anti-Semitism in the Church could be compelling as pertaining to Matthew, but there doesn't seem to be a smoking gun, so I would like to know what exactly you think is missing in the story here. AndrevanAndrevan 02:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this past year has been productive. You were a great mediator and I agree with you on all the major issues. It would appear that everything has been resolved (at least on my part). Incredibly I do not support his 50 CE date for Matthew. My views line up with PiCo. However we must insure that the article is written from a NPOV as you have suggested. Therefore I have asked for some clarification from the NPOV noticboard. It is not about the date but NPOV. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There was a serious debate regarding the 50 ce date of the Gospel of Matthew. See GOSPEL OF MATTHEW (talk) - NPOV dispute and edit warring.
• PICO brought the dispute to DSN - Gospel of Matthew where we failed to resolve the matter.
• I therefore brought it to the NPOV notice board to get some clarification. Here the discussion was closed by StAnselm after only one hour and 49 min. Since he was one of the active participants, this is a serious conflict of interest and a violation of Wikipeda policy. Diff

I am not sure how to deal with this?? - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I closed it because you were bringing up an issue that had already been resolved. You said on 1 October 2014, "As far as I am concerned all content issues have been resolved!" StAnselm (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I believe that the Oral Gospel tradition lasted until the fall of the Temple in 70 CE. It was only then that the first Gospels came into existence. Therefore my POV is that the Gospel of Matthew was completed around the year 80... but the concerns raised are not about content! - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HOWEVER there are many, many sources that disagree with my POV. Diff1, Diff2. Andrevan made a very strong case that these sources needed to be represented in the article. See GOSPEL OF MATTHEW (talk) - NPOV dispute and edit warring His position is supported by WP:NPOV which states "This policy is nonnegotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus." - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per User:StAnselm there have already been repeated examinations of your views on Gospel of Matthew origins. Please rest with previous discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the 50 CE date is NOT my viewpoint See User talk:PiCo for my POV. This is about NPOV plain and simple. In any event the wrongful closure by StAnselm has now been reverted. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ret.Prof, you seem to be an active WikiProject Christianity contributor, so I was wondering if you or any of your fellow project members would be willing to participate in an interview for the Signpost. Please see the questions here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk/Interviews. Thanks for your consideration! Go Phightins! 03:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, I believe this edit summary here is yet another display of your rather regularly attempts to distract people from the rather obviously problematic nature of your own editing and editing history. It is also I believe at best rather dubiously acceptable behavior in its own right to jump to the unfounded assertion that I am "attacking you everywhere," and that itself is reasonably seen as being at best problematic behavior. Now, considering you have made an attempt to misrepresent not only my actions, but also the statements of others, by making the obviously rationally unsupportable claim that there is somehow an effort to remove the 50 AD claim everywhere in wikipedia, a statement which to the best of my knowledge is unsupportable in any way shape or form, I believe it reasonable to advise you in the strongest possible terms to actually read all the pages I have linked to in my most recent edit on the NPOVN, particularly, perhaps, all the variations of TE which you seem to regularly display, as well as, given the rather obvious failure to abide by standard subsectioning on that page, [{WP:CIR]]. Should problematic edits of the nature I have recently seen continue, I don't think that there would be any reason not to bring the problematic nature of your editing to the attention of the community at ANI for input on how to resolve this. I guess you might reasonably consider this your final warning regarding such matters. John Carter (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have carefully read your "final warning". I will assume good faith! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ John, I still hope to work out our differences. However if you feel my behavior is in violation of some Wikipedia policy, Arbitration is now the way to go! - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, your above insistence on arbitration as being, apparently to you, the only way to go just continues to prove your own lack of awareness of wikipedia policies and guidelines, once again raising the WP:CIR issue regarding you. I realize you are singularly fond of that option, considering your own rather pathetic prior attempt to start an ArbCom case, but, if you were to ever actually review the policies and guidelines, it is well established by history and guidelines and policies, that, particularly for SPA POV pushers, which is more or less the category you fall in, ANI is considered sufficient, and has regularly been sought out as a venue for those who have "exhausted the patience of the community." Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to review all the policies, guidelines, and procedures, not just those few that you have ever shown any grasp of to date. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I just want you to stop following me around Wikipedia, attacking me personally and threatening to have me banned! - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being followed around and harassed has made it impossible for me to edit. Therefore I am stepping back from Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took a break to let things cool down. It has been misinterpreted and for this I apologize. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#WikiBullying 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.

- Ret.Prof (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COIducks Atsme☯^Consult 06:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read around this at some length. It is very clear to me that you consider your personal expertise to have primacy over reliable independent sources at Gospel of Matthew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and are unwilling to accept the fact that consensus does not support your additions, and that this has remained consistent over many months. This is a classic example of civil POV-pushing. Your continued input is causing disruption and is also provoking others. In the interests of peace and harmony, you should consider yourself banned form that article for a period of three months from today. If at the end of that period you continue this behaviour, you can expect a longer topic ban and potentially blocks. Please feel free to edit in areas unrelated to this topic, and establish a track record of successful collaborative editing. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is that I have been informally banned for over a year by the anti fringe editors. Every edit to every article I have made has been immediately reverted. The charges against me are serious. I can only hope that I will get arbitrators who are prepared to dig. Ret.Prof (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's how it is: you are now formally topic banned.

In context, that means you leave the article, and you don't edit subjects closely related to it, or promote the same ideas else where. Attempts to continue the same advocacy by exploring the limits of any restriction are known as wikilawyering and are not appreciated.

You have the following choices:

1. Appeal the ban, which I think will not succeed. If you do, you will need to talk about your actions not those of everybody you come into contact with. This is a legitimate route, but as I say, if you major on pointing the finger at other people, long experience says that you will fail, and fail badly.
2. Defy it, and get blocked. I don't recommend this.
3. Wait it out and then pile back in, which will probably not end well for you.
4. Find some area to edit where you feel less personally vested in the content, and establish a reputation outside this narrow topic area that might allow people to form a more rounded judgment of you.

Right now you come across as someone who is here to Right Great Wrongs. That is not what Wikipedia is for. You also state that your edits have been prevented by "anti-fringe" editors. That is by design: Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia, not a project to promote or legitimise fringe ideas.

The future is very much up to you. I hope you decide to try editing somewhere else, outside the areas where you have (as you seem aware) non-mainstream ideas. There is a lot of uncontentious material that could be added about the history of the church establishment, for example, by someone who has access to the sources. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame you. A handful of editors, with the help meat and sock puppets Diff1, Diff2 & Diff3 (See See also WP:Tag team) can blow a lot of smoke...and most people believe where there is smoke there is fire! Therefore I am in a bad spot. My hope is a "long shot". I need some arbitrators who are willing to see if there is any actual fire. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(e-c) One I think rather reasonable suggestion might be the area of Christianity in South Africa. We currently have only one, stub-class, article on the topic, and given what you say in your collapsed section above, you may well be in a position to be able to develop it rather well. We don't have a lot of really high quality articles to use as forms of "templates" for such, but Christianity in the United States could provide one useful example, and the articles in the Worldmark Encyclopedia of Religious Practices could provide additional guidance regarding relevant content to include in such articles. And, as someone who doesn't know the religious landscape of the area that well, if there is a clearly notable group there, or perhaps elsewhere in the world, which clearly meets basic WP:NOTABILITY guidelines which has beliefs similar to your own, I would love to see a page on it. With the estimated 20,000 distinct Christian groups/denominations out there, I know full well that we have little if any coverage on most of them, and would love to see content relating to many others as well. John Carter (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John. I also appreciate fact that although you would like to see me banned, that you would not support the ban until there was more evidence. I am impressed. Cheers Ret.Prof (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have no idea where you got that second clause from, because I cannot think of anything I might have said which would support it. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL *Oppose as rush to judgment. I probably misread this but thanks anyway. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thumb| "Ret.Prof... Resistance is futile!" Hi! I would like to do the online equivalent of sitting down with you and discussing the current situation over a cup of coffee (if you happen to find yourself in Southern California or in Guangdong Province, China during one of my trips there, I would be happy to meet face-to-face over a cup of coffee). Needless to say, if such a conversation is unwelcome, I quietly will go away without faulting you in any way.

I know that there are others who might want to join in, and I cannot stop them, but I was hoping for a one-on-one conversation. Perhaps they should ask permission as I did above, or simply comment in another section.

I am going to start, assuming that this conversation is welcome. Ret.Prof, feel free to delete anything I write here if that assumption is incorrect.

First, we should both look at our previous interactions. https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?user1=Guy+Macon&user2=Ret.Prof lists all pages that we both have edited. The "timeline" links show whether there were actual interactions or whether we just happened to edit the same page on different topics. The "diff" links on those timeline pages show the actual edits. I think that you will find that our main previous interactions have been at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 99#Gospel of Matthew, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Observations About Two Editors and a Call for an RFC, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by Guy Macon, and that I have never taken sides.

On the arb case I wrote:

"I would urge Ret Prof to spend the next three months doing productive work in areas not covered by the topic ban and to pick topics where he has no strong feelings or unpopular viewpoints, and where his current opponents have never edited. Using the tool at https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py and entering the name of one of his current opponents and the name of whoever last edited the page he is looking at is a good way to see if the opponent has ever edited that page.

A three-month history of collaborative editing would be evidence that the problem isn't just Ret Prof not being able to get along with anyone. Having the same sorts of issues with a new set of editors would be evidence that the problem is Ret Prof not being able to get along with anyone. And his current opponents suddenly taking an interest in the new topic would be evidence of wikibullying and stalking."

This is not to say that I am expressing an opinion on whether the topic ban was or was not justified, just that it exists and what I think would be your best course of action while it is in place.

You might also find my essay at WP:1AM to be of interest.

Your thoughts? BTW, it will save time if we don't repeat the arguments made in the three cases above. I have already read them and will only give my usual "I don't take sides" response. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have a great deal of respect for you. If I remember correctly the first thing you did was box all the personal attacks on me! I will ponder your kind words! - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided that my first priority must be to clear my name. There have been many, many, many false accusations against me. Quite a few good faith editors take these at face value, believing that I am a problem editor who had to be banned from Wikipedia. I can't go on like this...no more stepping back! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your first priority should be abiding by the conditions of the topic ban, which, in general, includes misuse of user space pages. It could, not unreasonably, be seen that your current use of this page is itself a violation of the topic ban, and I very, very strongly suggest that you remove any material added to it since the ban was imposed which might reasonably be seen as possibly being about the topic, and, thus, a violation of the topic ban, before perhaps further action becomes seen by others as necessary. John Carter (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong. Ret.Prof was temporarily banned from editing one particular page and associated talk page. He was not banned from any topic, and he most certainly was not banned from discussing the situation with me on his talk page. Your comment above is factually incorrect and unhelpful. and I advise Ret.Prof to not respond to to it in any way other than deleting it, as he is allowed to do on his own talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past while there have been a number of NPOV disputes (see my USER PAGE). They have led to the behavior issues which resulted in my being wrongfully banned.

The Papias Testimonium or the Testimony of Papias is as follows:

Papias (b. 63 A.D.) Matthew wrote down the sayings of Jesus (logia) in a Hebrew dialect (en Hebraidi dialecto).

Over 100 reliable sources have discussed Papias. About half of them support Papias, while the other half say Papias was wrong and there never was a primitive Hebrew Gospel composed by the Apostle Matthew. All the reliable sources, (many of them mainstream) which support Papias were deleted as fringe. Then I was taken to the AN/I to be banned as an incompetent editor who pushes fringe. I raised the importance of NPOV and the AN/I failed. I sought mediation which eventually led to a compromise, which I intend to honor.

Scholars agree that the Gospel of Matthew NOT composed by Matthew but by a group of unknown redactors in Koine Greek. Most (myself included) believe that it was completed about 85 CE. However a large number of mainstream scholars including heavyweight Maurice Casey Diff Diff DiffDiff support the 50 CE date. I noticed that all references to the 50 CE date were deleted from Wikipedia.It appeared to be a serious NPOV violation. Therefore, I went to the NPOV notice board seeking clarification. This resulted in an AN/I and my being wrongfully banned. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can already tell you what the response from the arbitration committee to the above will be, having seen it in dozens of similar cases. it will be:

The arbitration committee does not rule on content disputes, followed by a polite request that you delete all of the above and focus on user behavior -- and they will collapse or delete it for you if you decline.

You may recall your trip to WP:DRN where I kept hatting comment after comment about user behavior because DRN only deals with content disputes? Arbcom has the exact opposite rule, enforced just as rigorously. They only deal with user conduct. It wouldn't matter if the other side was pushing a date of 1985 and 100% of all sources supported your position; arbcom would only deal with conduct issues and send any remaining content disputes back to DRN.

Keeping in mind that I am not taking sides and will gladly advise your opponents if they ask, the only way to prevail -- or even have your case accepted -- at arbcom is to present clear evidence of user misbehavior, quoting the exact wording of the policy that wasn't followed, backed up with diffs of specific edits that unambiguously violate a policy or guideline. If you can do that (because your opponents misbehaved) you will prevail. If you can't (because you only think they misbehaved) then you won't be happy with the result. It goes the other way as well: If your opponents can do that (because you misbehaved) they will prevail. If they can't (because they only think you misbehaved) then they won't be happy with the result. Of course it could be both sides that misbehaved...

You really do need to edit productively in other areas for three months, then return to editing the page you were banned from for three months, taking excruciating care to not behave in any way resembling the behavior that got you topic banned. In particular, the admin said that "It is very clear to me that you consider your personal expertise to have primacy over reliable independent sources at Gospel of Matthew and are unwilling to accept the fact that consensus does not support your additions, and that this has remained consistent over many months." Again, I won't take sides on whether that description is or is not accurate, but I can assure you that when you come back to the page you need to avoid even the appearance of such behavior.

Finally, you might want to start reading past arbcom cases, especially the ones that were declined, and learn from the mistakes of others. In particular it would be a very poor strategy to file anything at arbcom before your topic ban expires and you have shown that you can return to the page you were banned from and show zero misbehavior of any kind. Do that, and nobody can use past behavior against you, because you will be showing on a daily basis that you "get it" and won't behave that way anymore. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. You are probably right. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ret.Prof, the Arbitration Committee has declined the WikiBullying arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 15:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said above that your first priority was, basically, clearing your good name. Actually, at this point, that probably shouldn't matter to you that much, because, honestly, at least around wikipedia, your name really isn't good. You have been rather clearly devoted to promoting content related to a hypothetical "Hebrew Gospel" pretty much from your first edit. Should you just wait out the block, and then start further basically tendentious NPOVN discussions and the like as you have just recently done, you can expect that you will get the results similar to those you have recently received, although I would expect the length of a sanction to be longer for a repeat of the events that led to the first. Honestly, there are an incredible number of other topics within the broad field of Christianity, particularly considering the number of denominations and belief groups, past and present, the number of church buildings, monasteries, and shrines, the incredible number of books, a scary number of saints and other basically venerated people, and, frankly, if one was interested in them, probably enough sources for articles not only on Christianity by country, but specific Christian traditions by country, or, even, in the cases of the Anglicans, Catholics, and other episcopal denominations, articles on the individual dioceses, history of the dioceses, bishops, etc., etc., etc. If you were to develop any content related to these topics in a way which doesn't display the problematic behavior that led to your current ban, that would probably do more to improve your name than just waiting for the ban to expire and coming back to argue the same points over again. Showing in other pages that you understand how to apply policies and guidelines in general, and maybe even bringing some articles up to GA or FA, would do a lot more toward improving your reputation than just waiting out the ban and starting the same arguments over again. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John for taking the time to give me some help. I tend to agree with most of what you said, particularly "around Wikipedia, your name really isn't good." **LOL** Talk about understatement! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Remember, there is more to living than life on the big WIKI! Enjoy the beautiful Spring weather! All the best. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help re WP:NFCC#9. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from simply copy and pasting other !votes like you have done here [1] from [2]. and this which is a copy of this. it is lazy. LibStar (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here I have to take a moment to share my heartfelt thanks! I am very grateful for the help and encouragement that I have received both on my talk page and by email. I would have given up long ago if it were not for all of you. You represent the very best of Wikipedia. Also, I have learned a great deal. I am enjoying working on my proposed edits which I plan to put forward at the end of the summer. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...for your support over at my RfA. I shall do my best to be worthy of it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao I have great faith in you! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Well done - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to sign your vote :) --Stfg (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday to a project making that is making the world a better place! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making yourself available! - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]