User:Robertinventor/reply to topic ban
Note - the proposal has been restored from the archive with addition of a proposal for a site ban, so I have updated this reply some more.
- 1 Summary (added after the topic ban proposal was archived)
- 2 Reply to topic ban
- 2.1 On edit history
- 2.2 Discussing this on facebook
- 2.3 Long wikipedia talk page posts
- 2.4 Anatta talk page posts
- 2.5 Migration hypothesis debate - closure review and joining the discussion
- 2.6 Joshua Jonathan's warnings
- 2.7 Why I am proceeding slowly with the DRN notice, with great care
- 2.8 Aim to improve wikipedia in good faith
- 3 Clarification of intent
Summary (added after the topic ban proposal was archived)[edit | hide all | hide | edit source]
First, note that I am in process of preparing a DRN Notice about Joshua Jonathan's edits of several articles on Buddhism. See DRN Notice draft.
The proposal, presented by JJ, was a topic ban for me on all articles on Buddhism, India, or Hinduism. It was followed by a proposal for an interaction ban, that I would be prohibited from responding to any posts by JJ, and prohibited from posting to any talk page which had posts by JJ on it. The reason given for this was that he suspected me of edit stalking him. See Archived discussion.
In the discussion, nobody asks me to present my case. In the circumstances, I felt it best not to reply. Finally - when everyone had had their say - and it was clear that nobody would ask me to reply or discuss it on my talk page - and that there was an overwhelming consensus for a topic ban - I posted a reply.
There was no response to my reply, and the proposal was auto archived by a bot 36 hours later due to inactivity.
The main points in this reply were:
- When I tell friends about these issues off-wiki to get advice - I always make clear they shouldn't interact on-wiki as a result - and nobody has.
- I was not edit stalking - as I haven't looked at JJs edit history recently. I did look at it some time back, but that was in the context of preparing the DRN notice.
- My posts to the Anatta talk page were to defend SQ - a newbie editor, expert in the subject as he is doing a masters in Buddhist studies, doing his first major edits of a wikipedia article. All his edits were swiftly reverted by JJ with a brief cryptic comment a newbie would not understand. And this had happened several times.
- I found out about JJs treatment of ScientificQuest through a post by SQ to JJs talk page.
- My posts here were not likely to help the DRN notice, indeed it will make a rollback harder, if another user edits JJs version of the article.
- I found out about the fringe noticeboard Indo-Aryan migration debate off-wiki.
- When I posted to it, it was as an uninvolved editor as I have no opinions on the matter. It has no religious significance to Buddhists, only to Hindus. I posted in a forum where uninvolved editors would be welcome.
- Yes, I mentioned my previous experience of JJs editing habits. This was to point out that he often presents a single POV as if it were an uncontested fact, and to suggest that we do a literature search as there may well be other POVs not represented in the lede. This was a good faith attempt to help with the debate, and I was not in any way canvassing for the DRN notice.
- My suggestion to review closure of this debate couldn't be considered a conduct issue as just about all those who commented on my suggestion when I took it to AN voted "overturn".
- I have written overlong posts in the past. There was an ANI about that, and I was given a second chance. And I have posted only short posts since then as well as developing work arounds for them.
So - the topic ban proposal was entirely based on assumptions of bad faith. And nobody asked me for my side of the story.
I wish to make sure that I create no cause at all for a further ANI to delay the DRN notice, and I wish to make sure this one can't be re-opened.
So, I will not interact with JJ any more, and won't post to any of the talk pages for India, Buddhism, or Hinduism - until the DRN notice, which will be submitted in a few days time. There is nothing personal about this. It just seems a sensible precaution in the circumstances. Robert Walker (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Reply to topic ban[edit | hide | edit source]
Do I get a chance to reply to this?
This is a fairly long reply in total - but many points have been raised in the topic ban proposal and discussion. My response to each of the points is quite short.
On edit history[edit | hide | edit source]
Please be aware that I am preparing a DRN notice about Joshua Jonathan's actions involving major rewrites of articles in Buddhism. See DRN notice Dispute Overfiew (draft)
In order to research into this, I looked at his edit history, I also looked at his talk page, and I also asked Dorje108 if he knew of any other articles affected.
In all this I was under the impression that I was proceeding in a correct and normal fashion. How else can I create an accurate notice?
If this is improper behaviour - please explain why - what guideline did I break or what issues result?
Also - please explain, what is the correct way to do the research for a DRN notice in a situation like this?
Discussing this on facebook[edit | hide | edit source]
Of course I talked about all this with my friends and asked for advice about how to handle the situation. This has involved many and extensive discussions face to face, on facebook, via PM, via email etc.
I always make it totally clear that they should not take part in any discussion on ANI as a result of hearing about it from me. And none of my off-wiki friends have taken part in any of these discussions here.
That's including those who are long term and experienced wikipedia editors. They have all kept to the guidelines to not get involved in a discussion they find out about in this way.
Long wikipedia talk page posts[edit | hide | edit source]
In the past I wrote many long talk page posts, and this was the subject of JJs previous ANI action against me - but if you check my edit history recently, all my posts have been short.
The only conduct issue with my previous posts was the length of the posts.
Anatta talk page posts[edit | hide | edit source]
My posts to the Anatta talk page were to defend a newbie editor attempting his first ever significant edits of an article in wikipedia .
I found about this through his post to JJs talk page here: User JJ:: Anatta
He could also reasonably consider himself expert on the topic as he is doing a masters in Buddhist studies on the subject. JJ reverted all 47 of his most recent edit attempts within 24 hours, and And this was his third attempt to add material to the article, all of which was removed with cryptic comments a newbie would not understand - and without a single encouraging commments on his content. He also suggested that the content has to be fully cited on the day when it is submitted - which is not at all a wikipedia policy.
My defense of this editor was not in any way supportive of the DRN notice, indeed it will make it trickier to roll back, if other editors edit JJs versions of the pages.
JJ is now treating this editor with much more consideration, so I consider it as probably resolved now, though the editor concerned has not yet tried editing the article again.
Migration hypothesis debate - closure review and joining the discussion[edit | hide | edit source]
After my suggestion to review closure of this debate, nearly everyone voted "overturn", and it was finally closed with consensus: overturn. How then was it a user conduct issue to ask for this review?
I did post about the early closure to the wrong place originally. This is just a mistake made by someone unfamiliar with details of how these procedures work.
As for my action of taking part, it was in a situation where it was reasonable to expect that contributions of an uninvolved editor would be welcome. I have never edited on the topic and don't have a pre-formed opinion on it. I think it would be good if more uninvolved editors were to take part - and to engage in the discussion calmly based on research into the citations. And to look further than the two citations that JJ repeatedly posts to the debate.
And I didn't find out about it by following JJs edit history, but found out from someone else, off-wiki.
I have no opinion on the matter. It has no religious significance for Buddhists. But I am interested to know why India didn't have writing at the time of the Buddha. I'm writing a blog post about that. See Origins of the Buddhist Sutras - were they the Teachings of the Buddha?. So the history of India is of interest to me - to understand the culture when the Buddha was born especially - and this is part of that. But not in the sense that I have a bias there. If there was a mass migration at the time proposed, I'd be interested to know why they didn't bring writing to India since they had it in the middle East at the time.
Joshua Jonathan's warnings[edit | hide | edit source]
First, he is not an admin and indeed is the opposing editor in a dispute. So that should be taken into account when he says that I disregarded his warnings to take me to ANI.
These were just the latest of many warnings from JJ. Long ago, when I said that I was planning to ask help about his actions as a user conduct issue, he warned me that it was likely to boomerang. Then when I continued and started on drafting a DRN notice in earnest, he took me to ANI for my long talk page posts. He eventually proposed that I be limited to 1500 characters and 3 edits per day on any talk pages in these topic areas - with that limit including drafts of posts and supplementary material for the posts in my own user space. The outcome was "no conclusion".
And now, this is the second ANI action he has taken against me in the same month since I started work on the notice in earnest. Of course, a topic ban would make it impossible to submit a DRN notice
I'm not saying that this is his motive. But - my actions have all been in good faith - and - I do think - that whatever the root reason is why they happened - that it is reasonably clear none of this would have happened if I hadn't set out to draft a DRN notice.
Why I am proceeding slowly with the DRN notice, with great care[edit | hide | edit source]
So, that's why I have been drafting the notice with great care and it has taken a fair time. I fully expect stiff opposition. And any clumsy good faith conduct could easily lead to more ANI actions taken against me.
And the ANI actions have further delayed the notice - as irrespective of the decisions, the rules are clear - you can't submit it during a related ANI debate.
Aim to improve wikipedia in good faith[edit | hide | edit source]
I did all this in good faith, with the aim to improve wikipedia, I also have the good faith aim to help make it a place where it is easier to edit, and a place where editors treat each other with more consideration and respect. If I did something wrong again, please explain what I did wrong.