User talk:Iamreallygoodatcheckers

Checkers

WP:TE at Donald Trump

You just added the exact wording that was not endorsed at the RfC and that was not endorsed by the closer of the RfC -- an RfC that was itself disruptive and unnecessary. Your behavior is way past what I would consider worthy of a topic ban, although just to let you know I am unlikely to do the work to document this and other overly-insistent and POV editing at AP and BLP articles. I really suggest you slow down, take a breather, and consider the feedback and other reactions you've been getting from many experienced editors on a variety of pages. Wishing you success, as always. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Your correct is saying the close did not endorse a specific wording, but it did say that there is a consensus to mention Trump's doubts "in some capacity." The current wording is not in line with what is now established consensus, and I made a BOLD edit, as recommended by the closer, to address the issue. I only chose that specific wording because it undeniably garnered some support, maybe not consensus, but support nonetheless. I don't have a problem with you reverting, but I would like to see text that is not in line with consensus be changed to conform with the consensus to mention Trumps doubt. This isn't the place to discuss content, but I think Space4Times proposal in that RfC was pretty good if you wanna go add it. Thank you for wishing me success, but you shouldn't accuse me of behavior "worthy of a topic ban" and editing with a POV, without any evidence. You and I both know that is WP:Casting aspersions and is certainly not assuming good faith, and saying you're not going to do the work to document it is not a valid excuse for casting aspersions. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• I would also like it to be noted that I believe the edit SPECIFICO is referring to is this one [1], and it's the first edit I believe I've ever made to the Russian section of the Trump article. I'm not sure how this could amount to WP:TE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  Excellent deflection. That's exactly what you proposed in a needlessly repetitive RfC, then after it died with no consensus your "first edit" is exactly what did not get support in the RfC. Now maybe you can chew on that and reflect on "not sure: how that could amount to WP:TE. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

72 hour archival?

Hello @iamreallygoodatcheckers, I'm guessing that our arbitration was archived automatically due to 72 hours of inactivity, how do we get it back? We still fully agree on the necessity of a ban.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#User:Tennisedu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krosero (talk • contribs) 12:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)