/Archive 1

/Archive 2

/Archive 3

/Archive 4

/Archive 5

/JCGSA

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]