I posted this in the other thread then thought it was better placed here instead.

A validation or reference for nutildah is not required as his record in this forum speaks for itself but after seeing recent comments made against him I wanted to make a post. Please note, he does not hand out negative tags on a whim even though he has been a member of the community for a very long time. Also, from an earlier post it seems he did advise you some time ago yet you disregarded his advice even though he probably had collated information that suggested/pointed you had other accounts yet never published it.

Clearly you came to the wrong conclusion about him because the idea that he would blindly support a campaign manager for any reason including for being allowed to join a campaign is not only ludicrous but somewhat insulting. I do not believe he would write to managers asking them to add/remove participants therefore I would advise you to remove the negative tag you gave him because it is completely unwarranted.

As far as the issue on hand is concerned, I see it in two ways. The first is what you are mentioning about collusion and collaboration (with negative connotations) mostly between members from a particular local board and a particular campaign manager. The other being your use of accounts. If evidence suggests you have another account including one that has negative tags (including from me) and you wish to contest the claim, you will have to compile a meaning defence for others to read and evaluate it or you can simply accept the tags and move on.

Having said that, you have exerted a lot of energy trying to connect various accounts that could be up to no good and I know that can be frustrating when solid evidence is difficult to find. For example, various names have been mentioned in PMs between certain members regarding who is (or probably is) an alt-account or part of an account farming ring but even though some us know who they are, their names have not been made public because the evidence thus far is not strong enough.

It is possible you got frustrated and openly mentioned a number of members that might or might not be connected in a negative manner without compelling evidence (though there might be circumstantial), when maybe being patient until you collated something substantial could have been the appropriate step. I am aware part of the problem is that they are getting better at leaving less trails behind therefore it does not help when you want to present a case but lashing out in either anger or frustration will not help and only brings more attention to yourself. Maybe that was what nutildah advised you about in the past in the spirit of second chances.