User:Strikerforce/Dec 2018 ANI response

Should I at some point be required to explain myself, this essay serves as my response to an ANI thread involving me which was closed before I had an opportunity to respond within the discussion.

As mentioned by Pirate hamster, he and I were involved in a rather contentious AfD discussion. Pirate hamster – hereafter, Ph – and I were on opposite sides of the discussion. I was of the opinion that the article should be deleted because the subject did not meet GNG and he disagreed.

During the course of the AfD discussion, Ph made this edit, which deleted over 40,000 bytes of the discussion. Bradv reverted the edit within one minute. It was my belief – and remains so – that Ph intentionally removed the entire discussion, except for their new comment – was a form of vandalism and to make a point. Thus, I issued a warning regarding vandalism on Ph’s talk page on December 4, 2018.

Five days later, Ph responded to my warning and asked “where have I "vandalised" WIkipedia??? Specifics please!” and then added to their response, calling the warning “unmerited”, “I didn't touch Malcolm Kendrick's entry, nor did I edit anyone's comment, other than my own, on the Articles for Discussion page. So where, exactly, has this alleged 'vandalism' taken place? I do not appreciate big shouty warnings for something I did not do, so specifics please or I shall report this as harassment, since that seems to be the Wikipedia Way”.

First, as I have explained above, I disagree with Ph’s contention that the warning was “unmerited”. Even assuming good faith, I find it difficult to believe that their edit was not done in order to make a point, which is – by definition – a disruption of Wikipedia and is grounds for a block. Second, the warning process is not harassment, unless taken to an extreme, which I firmly contend I did not do.

The next day, six days after the initial warning, I logged into my Wikipedia account after a weekend away and noticed that not only had Ph posed the above questions, but MPS1992 had removed the warning and Ph’s question without having given me an opportunity to respond to said questions, which would seem to violate TPO, as pointed out by Softlavender during the ANI discussion. I restored the warning and provided a diff to the edit which prompted it. The rest of the dialog may be seen here.

I agree that Ph was within their right to remove the warning from their own talk page. Once I was given the opportunity to provide a diff and it was obvious by the response the Ph was aware of the issue that I was raising, I had no problem with them removing the warning themselves. I was not, however, willing to self-revert and remove the warning myself. In my opinion, doing so would have been an admission that the warning was improperly given to begin with. As I have explained previously, I did not then and do not now feel that that is the case.

I do not agree with MPS1992’s decision to remove the warning to begin with, particularly when it was clear that Ph had questions as to why it had been given. It would be one thing, perhaps, to remove the warning after several days or more without a response from me, but to do so less than ten minutes after Ph raised their questions was improper, in my opinion. Someone with over 10,600 edits to Wikipedia really should know better.

To conclude, I disagreed and still do disagree with Ph about Malcolm Kendrick (the subject which prompted our interaction in the first place). I disagree with their stance that their removal of over 40,000 bytes of AfD discussion was not intentional. I disagree with the issue ending up at ANI. I believe that the matter could have been resolved on either of our talk pages. However, I recognize the right of any editor to take something to ANI when they feel that they have been wronged. I have no continued issue with Pirate hamster and wish them well.

(Pinging all editors mentioned herein -  , as well as active editors within the AfD discussion,    - Please leave any responses on the talk page)