User talk:Buddytula

Removal of valid sourced content
Hi, I noticed you removed some well-sourced and relevant content from a couple articles on my watchlist (for example here). And I notice from your contribution history that you have been doing this for some time, due to an SPI case.

The content you are removing is valuable, was not added in a disruptive way, well-written, well-sourced, and relevant. Nothing violates any editorial policies or guidelines. Your removals are based on the identity of the contributor without regard to the actual content.

Before I wholesale-revert all of your edits as being unnecessarily disruptive, would you explain why you are doing this? How is this helpful to the Wikipedia project? ~Anachronist (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Anachronist. I have no problem with the reinsertion of any material that I remove which is independently verified by another editor prior to reinsertion. The problem with this user's edits is that sources are commonly misrepresented or the text is dumped in violation of copyright law, as I determined here. While I have checked the content of a few edits and have avoided reverting quite a few others, I am not able to independently verify all of them because I lack the time to do so and because quite a few of the sources are not easily accessible. My edits thus far are consistent with WP:BANREVERT and we are no longer to required assume good faith of editors after they have been banned. Furthermore, retaining such edits emboldens the sockpuppeteer and encourages the creation of more sockpuppets. Buddytula (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Bear in mind that BANREVERT simply permits reverting banned-user edits, but doesn't require it. That said, I am glad you are taking care to examine the content and the sources before reverting the edits. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I completed my review of sockpuppet User:1 Carniole House earlier today so the many standing edits from that user are edits that I chose not to revert since they were innocuous. You'll also find among my earliest edits a number of sources that were misrepresented by the sockpuppeteer. While I will continue to revert many of this user's substantive edits, and I know that a small amount of that content that I inadvertently end up removing may be helpful, I will still try to minimize any false positives in due course and believe that my edits are a net-positive for the project. As a result of your prodding, I will be particularly careful with any material where quotes from the source have been provided by the user and attempt to ensure that the quotes are accurate. Buddytula (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Email
Hi, I noticed you sent me an email. Thank you for it but I can't seem to access my emails anymore so you're message remains unread. Is there any way for you to communicate it here? NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be prudent to post that information publicly since it relates to suspected sockpuppets. I'm happy to resend it if you set up a new email address. Buddytula (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)