The BLPN thread begins with this from you
After reverting an addition of a name of a living person to this article based on doubtful reasoning and subsequently the name being re-added, I am concerned about the basis of the whole article. There is an assumption that someone who is alleged to have had sex with a "novice" or "student" or "disciple" (without unambiguous definitions of these terms) is fair game to be listed in this article as a "sex abuse case". Some of the names listed have had no legal proceedings taken against them, others have been reported as having reached out of court settlements without the case being proven. There are obvious issues with the name of the article, the selection criteria for names being added and confusion about how well such cases need to be sourced. Fæ (talk) 
 However you spin it, it was you who initiated this process and you did not extend me the courtesy of informing me. I did not revert any deletion of yours in your account name unless it was an IP deletion or from another account and for each reversion I made I noted in the edit summary that I had referred to it  on the talk page and there gave my reasons and asked for dialogue.
 If I had seen your concerns I would have noted first of all that unambiguous definition of terms is not common in discourses and in any case I began the article with a clear description of what was meant by  'abuse' in the context of the article. Even in the drafting of legislation where great care is taken to be unambiguous there is nevertheless a need to leave some terms undefined: for example 'nation' in EU leglislation, 'indecent' in UK criminal legislation (in the context of child protection) - the examples are legion. In any case it is perfectly well understood what abusive sexual behaviour amounts to and abusive behaviour need not be criminal. In particular teacher-student sexual relationships are universally regarded as abusive on the part of the teacher. The selection criteria was mentioned in the article - that the individuals involved had founded Buddhist groups at the forefront of the emerging Western Buddhist movement. 
 I continue to disbelieve your good faith. Good or bad I think you are both simple and contemptible. I wish you no good will whatsoever and I expressly do not wish you goodbye.