TarnishedPath

Editor experience invitation

Hi TarnishedPath :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Criminal parameters at Donald Trump

Hello. I recently reverted the inclusion of the criminal parameters in Trump's infobox citing legitimate policy concerns. As of now, this happened less than 24 hours ago. You reinstated them without consensus soon after.This amounts to tag teaming and distorts the consensus building process. Also, violates the spirit of the arbitration restriction to follow the BRD cycle set for the Trump article. It would be a courtesy to respect the process and revert your reinstatement. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse me of WP:MEATPUPPET, I suggest you provide specific evidence that I'm coordinating with other editors off-wiki. Otherwise I suggest you strike your ridiculous accusations. Note: there has been obvious consensus formed at Talk:Donald_Trump#What_we_do_after_conviction for the inclusion of the material in the infobox. TarnishedPath^talk 15:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Somebody added these parameters and I appropriately reverted them within policy and guideline. You then reinstated them without consensus (you can't cite an unclosed, one-day old RfC as consensus for anything). This created an edit war situation where I couldn't revert what you reinstated but you also technically avoided breaking the BRD restriction because you didn't originally add the parameters, someone else did. That's what I meant by saying it was a form of tag teaming in this context, but if there is a different understanding of it I will strike the accusation. Either way what happened was disruptive. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 16:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers, per WP:TAGTEAM: "Tag teaming (sometimes also called an editorial camp or gang, factionalism, or a travelling circus) is a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus". TarnishedPath^talk 16:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

While I'm pretty sure I've seen the use of "tag team" to describe what has occurred here before, I will strike it because I don't believe it was coordinated in any meaningful way. But, I will reiterate what occurred was disruptive. It's all resolved now anyway. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers, my single revert was no more disruptive than yours or anyone else's single revert. I really don't see what the need was for you to come to my talk page, rather than just discussing it in the article itself. TarnishedPath^talk 03:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It is because your revert was a violation of BRD by reinstating major content changes with no consensus that had been challenged, and I had put in my edit summary not to add back without consensus. These things cannot be said about my revert. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 10:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

My revert was within what is specified by the Active Arbitration Remedies notice. Again my single revert was no more disruptive than yours or anyone else's. If I put a note in my edit summary for others after me to not revert my change would that have made a substantive difference to my edit? The answer is no and neither did it to yours. Again, I'm not sure what inspired you to come here which was unable to be dealt with through normal conversation on the article's talk page. TarnishedPath^talk 10:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)