User:Robertinventor/tban appeal draft 2

draft 1 - draft 2 - draft 3

Draft for a t-ban on Wikipedia - done here as I can't mention the banned topic on Wikipedia until I submit the appeal. To be submitted at AN.

Request to lift topic ban (Robertinventor)[edit]

I wish to get my indef topic ban in the Buddhism topic area lifted. The main reason for the original topic ban is that my talk page posts were too long and I did too many of them. A secondary reason was that I did too many minor edits of my talk page posts after posting them. Several other points were mentioned but those are the ones that were given most weight in the discussion. All of these are easily addressed.

I am an editor in good standing, and active in many areas of Wikipedia. I am often involved in talk page discussions on multiple topics, and have only ever been taken to WP:ANI for my talk page discussions in the Buddhism topic area. I have no other sanctions against me.

The dispute is now over completely. I have several other projects that take up a lot of my time. If you lift the t-ban appeal, I expect to do only the occasional minor edit and wikignoming in the Buddhism topic area. Nevertheless I think this is a valuable addition to the project, fixing occasional minor issues.

I have added messages to my user space asking editors to please draw my attention to the matter if I do any of these things.

Given how little editing I do of the Buddhism topic area myself, it's unlikely that this will be needed. But just in case, as explained there, this is how I can deal with these issues if they arise again, see also below (collapsed)

Extended content

The minor edits issue is easily fixed by using the sandbox I often use the wrong word or transpose letters, and I also copy edit posts for clarity. On other platforms it is not a problem. When I post in Wikipedia I tend to forget that it is an issue here, for instance, because other editors get notification of my edits.

I was unaware of this way of using the sandbox until my t-ban (apparently someone mentioned it to me before, but I didn't understand or didn't notice). It was @Softlavender: who made this suggestion in the discussion. Since then, I have been using the sandbox for long talk page posts that need care for composition. I sometimes forget, recently another editor mentioned it on my talk page, [User_talk:Robertinventor#User:Robertinventor#Too_many_edits_for_a_talk_page_post User:Robertinventor#Too many edits for a talk page post, and I immediately started using the sandbox for this discussion.

The t-ban discussion paid particular attention to a comment I made on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard that I edited after it had been replied to. The issue was that I did not indicate the correction with underline and strikeout. What confused me was that the discussion was in a separate subheading fron the comment I was editing. I now know that this still triggers the WP:REDACT guideline on the comment that is being discussed, and will not do this in future.

The overlong talk page posts can also be fixed in the same way - by putting a post into my sand box and then working on it until I get it down to a reasonable length. I have also worked on some User:Robertinventor/Work arounds for lengthy talk page comments. Note that my long posts are written with the aim of improving Wikipedia. The issue has always been verbosity, not intent.
Too many posts This can be dealt with by leaving more time between posts for other editors to respond, taking a wiki break if a conversation becomes heated and so on. I have an alternative wikipedia account disclosed on my user page to use if I need to take a wikibreak from a conversation in Wikipedia in my main account (of course editing in topics well away from any current discussion for the main account).

Background to the dispute[edit]

I was indef t-banned in the Buddhism topic area in the course of a dispute over articles on central ideas in Buddhism that had a major rewrite in 2014. We had irreconcilable differences in views about what count as reliable sources in this topic area, and indeed, what the central ideas of Buddhism are.

The talk page discussions were about trying to restore content from the 2014 articles that I valued as a reader of Wikipedia. The only contributions I had made to those articles were by way of wikignoming. We lost in our attempt to get the material restored - after following up all the avenues we know of. It is now over and @Dorje108: and I have moved on to other projects.

My plans for the Buddhism topic[edit]

Though the amount of editing I do in this particular topic area is low, and mainly in the form of wikignoming, I still have reasons to get the ban lifted.

Sometimes I spot errors in the Buddhism topic area, simple ones, such as the ones I used to fix, but of course can't fix them while I am topic banned, or even mention them to anyone else on Wikipedia.
As an editor otherwise in good standing I would prefer not to have a topic ban against me in Wikipedia.

Example of the type of edit I'd like to be able to do in the Buddhism topic area[edit]

The Gautama Buddha article has a minor error. It says

"It was either a small republic, or an oligarchy, and his father was an elected chieftain, or oligarch."

The cite given, by Gombrich, actually describes how he thinks the Sakya society worked in some detail and then goes on to say

"Some historians call this an oligarchy, some a republic; certainly it was not a brahminical monarchy"

The original source for the statement seems to be mis-paraphrased. Gombrich was not referring to a difference in view amongst historians about what kind of a system it was, but rather, a difference in view about what to call it. For such a high profile article, one of the central ones on Buddhism, I'd take this to the talk page. For minor articles with clear mistakes I'd use WP:BOLD and just fix it. Either way, it would be good to be able to fix these minor errors on the spot as I notice them, or mention them on the talk page so that other editors can fix them.

This might also involve wikignoming type edits such as fixing broken links or adding an extra cite. In other words I wish to return to the occasional minor fixes that I used to do before the dispute arose.