User:Robertinventor/talk page post drafts
OLD PAGE DRAFTED FOR ANI PROPOSAL BUT NEVER ACCEPTED
On edit history[edit source | hide]
In discussion of my action of viewing JJs edit history - 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)
It seems to me that I need to look at his edit history to find out what he has done. For instance I became aware of his activities in this area in October but it turns out that he has being doing it since July of this year on various articles. To discover that, I needed to look at his edit history, along with talking to other wikipedians affected by his edits. How else can I do a reasonably thorough job of the research and create an accurate notice?
Statements by the editor concerned saying I shouldn't look at his edit history don't carry much weight when he is the subject of the notice. Nobody else gave me this advice and I saw no wikipedia guidelines to say I shouldn't do this. If this is improper behaviour - please explain why - and also - please explain what is the correct way to do the research.
Discussing this on facebook[edit source | hide]
Of course I talked about all this extensively with my facebook friends and asked for advice about how to handle the situation. I also make it totally clear in my facebook timeline that they should not take part in any discussion here as a result of my discussions there. And nobody has come here from facebook to take part in any of the debates. There is nothing in this that is an issue at all, as you are permitted to talk to off wiki friends about issues you face in wikipedia.
Long wikipedia talk page posts[edit source | hide]
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 these posts was length.
Anatta talk page posts[edit source | hide]
My posts to the Anatta talk page were to defend a newbie editor attempting his first ever significant edits of an article in wikipedia. He could also reasonably consider himself expert on the topic as he is doing a masters in Buddhist studies on the subject.
JJ reverted 47 edits within 24 hours, and had already done that several times, with just the briefest of comments to say he needed to supply more citations first before his edits would be accepted - and not a single word in encouragement of anything he had done. His revert was not policy based as there is no guideline saying edits have to be fully cited on the day that they are added to wikipedia.
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 that particular issue resolved as far as I can tell so far - but I still feel that my original action was necessary.
Migration hypothesis debate[edit source | hide]
My suggestion to review closure of this debate has been accepted by most of the editors concerned. Nearly all so far voted "overturn" . So to say that it was a user conduct issue for me to suggest closure of this debate seems bizarre. I posted about this to the wrong place originally which is just an error by someone unfamiliar with details of how these procedures work, for which I apologize.
As for the suggestion that it was a user conduct issue for me to join the debate at all - this 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, but am interested - it has a connection with an off wiki blog post I am currently working on.
I found out about it because someone gave me a link to the discussion off-wiki thinking I'd be interested because of the DRN notice and because JJ was involved. The issue seems similar to me to one of the many issues in the Buddhism articles -that he rewrites the lede of an article to be a fork of the main article,
In this case - the article says that it is controversial with no mention of this controversy in the lede, which presents it as a fact. So far, my impression as an uninvolved editor is that there seem to be many competing and differing views and that the article should reflect this in a NPOV way from the "get go" in the lede. It would be good if more uninvolved editors were to take part and if the discussion was based on detailed consideration of citations. JJ has copy pasted the same two citations many times to this discussion, but there are many other papers on the subject. It seemed to me that it was a heated debate in which nobody was consulting the scholarly literature on the subject or looking for new material to help resolve the debate. And I felt that I could help there by searching for more, and more recent, citations.
Joshua Jonathan's warnings[edit source | hide]
JJ is not an admin, so when he warns me that he will take action against me - that doesn't mean I just have to do what he says. I see no user conduct issue in any of this. JJ has frequently threatened me with disciplinary action. When I said that I was planning a DRN notice he warned me that it was likely to boomerang - what he didn't explain back then is that it was he himself who would instigate the boomerang actions, and do so before I did the notice. This is the second ANI action he has taken against me in the same month.
This is a place to draft out posts to reduce number of edits in the edit history for talk pages.