User:Robertinventor/DRN Notice - previous ANI actions

From Astrobiology Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Back to: Clarification of intent

Main issues identified by JJ[edit source | hide | hide all]

The main issues identified by JJ as his reasons for the ANI actions taken against me (Robert Walker) were

  • overlong talk page posts
  • too many minor edits of my posts after I post, which leads to long talk page edit histories
  • posts about his edits to talk pages of other articles I found while preparing this notice. My posts were to alert other editors of similar major edits and the issues involved.
  • my posts to a debate in the fringe theories notice board about an article he edited, in which I mention his edits of the Buddhism articles to present only one POV on a complex debate.

These lead to proposals for a topic ban, a one way interaction ban of me with JJ and finally lead to him giving support to a proposed complete site ban of me from wikipedia (proposed by Robert McClennon) for these actions. (Note that I am not a SPA but in normal circumstances edit many areas of wikipedia).

Our perspective[edit source | hide]

For our perspective on it, see Dorje's section in the second ANI: Background information.

Outcome of the ANIs[edit source | hide]

The first ANI was closed without outcome[1], and the second ANI was closed as no consensus, with a warning by an admin to me to cut out any inappropriate talk page behaviour.[2]

After first ANI - workaround for overlong talk page posts and the talk page edit history issue[edit source | hide]

After the first ANI I worked out these Work arounds for lengthy talk page comments and I now use drafts of talk page posts in my user space to make sure I don't add many edit notifications to talk page edit histories.

After second ANI - voluntary decision to cease interaction with JJ until the DRN[edit source | hide]

After the second ANI, especially since he proposed a one-way interaction ban of me with him in the ANI, and supported a site ban of me proposed by another editor Robert McClennon, it seems wise to simply cease editing wikipedia (apart from this notice), posting to any talk pages or interacting with JJ until the DRN notice is submitted.

Please note that I have never engaged in any form of wikihounding, which is defined as "with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor" (see WP:WIKIHOUNDING).

I'd like to reassure JJ and everyone else that this has never been my aim. All my talk page posts are good faith posts based on my interpretations of wikipedia editing guidelines, entirely content based, and with the aim of improving wikipedia.

Since we disagree on many points of editing policy, then if I respond to his talk page posts I am bound to continue to have points of disagreement with him, similar to the disagreements that lead to the ANI actions. For instance I would want to inform other editors that his policy on primary and secondary sources was not endorsed by the RfC, and talk about issues of NPOV etc - the issues we hope to discuss in the DRN notice.

After the second ANI, brought out in response to talk page posts on those same topics - I believe there is a risk he could interpret any more such posts as harassment.

So, to avoid any possibility of further ANI actions before the notice is submitted, I have voluntarily made the decision not to reply to any posts by JJ or post to any talk pages on Buddhism at all until the DRN notice.

I feel this is especially important since JJ proposed a one way interaction ban of me with him. In the circumstances - I feel the only way to rebuild confidence, in the short term, is to just not interact with him at all. Hopefully after a couple of weeks of this he will see that I am not in fact wikhounding him and that my motive for these actions is entirely content based.

Hopefully the DRN will help establish whether we have a case - whether his edits do breach the guidelines, and if so, what if anything should be done about it.

Decision to take even more care over this notice and only present it when ready[edit source | hide]

In view of the two ANI actions, it also seems wise to take great care over the presentation of the notice, which is why it has taken a fair while to submit it. I feel it has to be

  • Accurate
  • Detailed
  • Focused on Wikipedia guidelines and informed by a detailed understanding of them as best as we can achieve

This involves much research. I know that DRN notices are often presented at an early stage, but in this case for various external reasons we are only able to present it at a rather late stage in the dispute.

We also needed to take a rest from it all after each of the ANI actions, and of course the actions themselves also took a fair amount of time.

Back to: Clarification of intent