User:Robertinventor/Edit conduct issue
Why we think JJs edits are a potential edit conduct issue[edit source | hide | hide all]
(in this, JJ refers to Joshua Jonathan and RM to Robert McClennon)
This has come up a few times in the debate, so I'd like to emphasize that from our part, our issues are entirely with edit conduct and motivated by the wish to ensure collaborative editing where the contributions of all editors are valued.
When I first posted to the Karma in Buddhism article, about his major revision of the article - just about all I knew of him at that stage was that he was the editor who had just done a major revision of a favourite article on Buddhism which removed many of the best sections of the article (in my view). Our only previous interaction was positive - he agreed with a comment I made about the ordering of the sections of the Karma article  (His other Karma talk page posts came later ). So there is no way it can be seen as a personality clash issue.
Also, throughout our now months long discussion neither Dorje108 nor I have attempted to edit the articles or revert any of JJs edits except for Dorje's first attempt at BRD which he reverted with BRDR. And have continued to do our best to achieve resolution in an amicable way.
Personally I wish JJ nothing but good. And if we met off wiki I would not have any animosity towards him because of his wikipedia editing behaviour. He clearly thinks that the way he edits wikipedia is okay. We think it violates core wikipedia guidelines. Hopefully if we can take this forward in the right way this disagrement about his edits can be resolved in an amicable way.
Before about summer 2014, as best I could tell, he was involved in collaborative editing with the other editors of these articles. So, our wish is that he can take part in the community of editors just as he did before he decided to undertake these major revisions of many of the articles on central Buddhist concepts.
Also, Carol Anderson's work of course should be included - though we believe it should be presented as a search into the ur texts of the Buddha rather than as Buddhist modernism. She makes it clear in her book that she does not intend modern Buddhists to revise their beliefs and methods as a result of her researches, or to stop relying on the sutras. She puts it like this: "The authority of the four noble truths as a symbol relies, in the end, upon the memory of the Therevada Buddhist tradition as recorded in the Therevada canon". . And her researches don't impact on the Mahayana sutras at all, which all scholars agree were composed at a much later date, many of them a thousand years after the Buddha.
Yes, RM did advise me that a major rewrite of an article is not itself a conduct issue, referring me to BRD. See Not a conduct issue.
However, he is not guiding us in this dispute. And he is not acting as a mediator either, or as an admin closing a discussion. He just offered some suggestions, also said he felt he was not the right person to look at the dispute in any detail, and said we should look elsewhere for detailed guidance.
It seems reasonable to us in the circumstances to continue to research it as a potential edit conduct issue. In our DRN draft we identify eleven potential Edit conduct issues.
We plan to post a DRN notice first in case there is some way to resolve it there, and as the first stage in a dispute resolution process, with the expectation that we will be directed elsewhere if we have posted in the wrong place. We also hope that perhaps we might find someone there familiar with wikipedia procedures who is willing to take it on and help guide us to a resolution.If you want to find out more see the DRN Notice Draft. We are ready to submit it as soon as this ANI is over, though probably not until next weekend now (bear in mind that it will be much easier for Dorje108 to take part over the weekend). Robert Walker (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)