Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Raj Barr-Kumar (2nd nomination)

Archive of AfD debate protocol dispute
Content from Editor assistance/Requests archived here for reference to Dispute resolution noticeboard.

Not sure what to do regarding AfD debate protocol dispute
I'm looking to get some help with an ongoing dispute involving AfD debate protocols. Tiptoethrutheminefield has been editing the debate in a way that I feel may obfuscate the debate history. The user is editing previous sections of the debate to which responses have already been made, rather than adding additional commentary further down the line. Signature stamps have also been placed in such a way that may be disingenuous, or at the very least, distort the debate history. I already reverted these edits once, and added a note regarding the event to the debate, and explained my reasons for doing so in the edit summary. However, Tiptoethrutheminefield, reverted my edits and deleted my note regarding the incident. I'm trying to avoid an edit war, and I have reviewed WP:AFDFORMAT, but I'm still not sure what the appropriate next step is. Any assistance or guidance would be greatly appreciated!

Original version of the debate: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raj_Barr-Kumar_(2nd_nomination)&diff=746232154&oldid=746231033]

Tiptoethrutheminefield's first edit: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raj_Barr-Kumar_(2nd_nomination)&diff=746233537&oldid=746233464]

My version including the restored original content and note regarding the incident: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raj_Barr-Kumar_(2nd_nomination)&diff=746235216&oldid=746233537]

My version including additional reply: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raj_Barr-Kumar_(2nd_nomination)&diff=746236926&oldid=746235216]

Latest version after Timtoethrutheminefield deleted the portion of the debate that I restored and deleted my note: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raj_Barr-Kumar_(2nd_nomination)&diff=746300833&oldid=746298199]

Bmhs823 (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Bmhs823, an AfD is not some sort of contest involving a series of chess-like attacking or defensive moves made in the form of a sequence of unalterable post after unalterable post. Of course I can add to or clarify or expand on points that I have made earlier - especially since neither you (or any editor) had given responses to those specific points expanded on (the self published nature of his books, lack of papers or articles, non-notable "awards", everyday projects claimed to be educationally innovative, and so on). You are also free to edit or expand on your own posts, but you should not duplicate the posts of others complete with their sigs - I don't see how you could have though this made the AfD discussion clearer to understand or any of the points that we were both making easier for others to read.  Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Tiotoethrutheminefield, I'm not trying to engage in a contest, and I actually went out of my way not to call you out after the original changes in the hopes of diffusing the situation, and assuming the edits you made were in good faith. Changing a statement or a series of statements that has been responded to distorts the progression of the debate.  New comments or clarification should be added in a new section using the appropriate level of indentation.  Furthermore, the changes (or lack of changes) you made to particular signatures/time stamps further distorted the history of the debate as it progressed.  I felt it was best to reproduce the altered content exactly in the interest of full transparency.  Bmhs823 (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell only one of his books was self published, and it was his first. I don't think it's that unusual for an author or academic's first book to be self published.  Bmhs823 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Bmhs823, I think you are trying to make something out of nothing here. A delete or keep rationale is more readable and understandable if it forms a well-structured and self-contained argument. I think AfDs are not best structured if they are a series of individual posts where A writes something, B posts something under that in response to A, A then adds something more in response to B, B adds more as a reply to A, and so on, and with that process repeated for every respondent to the AfD. The only issue that could arise from editing or adding to previously posted wording would be if another editor had replied to a specific point in an earlier version of that wording - then the original wording should not be altered significantly or deleted because if that were done, the response post would not make sense. This has not occurred here. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)