Aron Manning

Welcome

Hello, Aron Manning, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Simplified Manual of Style
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community - subscribe to The Signpost, our illustrated monthly newspaper, and have it delivered directly to your talk page.

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Did we really?

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Did we read the same article and submitted the same content at the same time? Just be careful though, from what I remember reading your version is a bit closer to the original text Shencypeter (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Shencypeter: Yep, though the timing on my part is not accidental. I was fixing the removal of the main point concealed as copyedit. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 14:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Shencypeter: I added more detail, but I find your wording more refined, feel free to improve. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 14:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Aron Manning: done, thanks Shencypeter (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

June 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aron Manning (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have no intent to disrupt the encyclopedia, thus this block is "not necessary to prevent damage or disruption". In response to the concerns of bludgeoning, I'll be more mindful of my responses and conciseness in the future. This request is intentionally verbose to satisfyingly communicate my intent to improve – not disrupt – the encyclopedia.

A few editors had concerns regarding my edits in a single ongoing MRV discussion in the project namespace, not public-facing articles.
I understand my answers that are criticized for bludgeoning were ineffective in creating a meaningful, factual discussion.
My answers were not concise enough, included too much evidence, policy citations, and long links (diffs), that resulted in a magnitudinal increase of the raw wikitext I committed (28% of the page). Concision improved in recent comments in response to the feedback.
I was bold to point out unproven assumptions in the majority of the RM arguments and some MRV arguments. My intent was to improve the discussion by making factual arguments, providing citations from policies, the RM and the MRV.
There is little repetition in my comments: most of my comments present new arguments, addressing the explicit or implied arguments in the comment it responds to. The claims of bludgeoning came from 3 editors on the opposing side of this heated MRV debate, after I refuted with evidence some arguments. Such claims are hardly neutral.
My comments did not make personal remarks, off-topic arguments, nor personal attacks, that would disrupt the MRV process. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 08:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

Confirmed sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Do you have any alternate accounts that you'd like to declare? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@NinjaRobotPirate: I declared it to the ArbCom. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 23:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

To editor NinjaRobotPirate: Might I ask you: did this question help you review my unblock request? —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 19:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm not going to even consider unblocking you unless you're up front about what other accounts you've used. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@NinjaRobotPirate: As required by WP:ALTACCN I was "up front" declaring to ArbCom for "privacy reasons". That is sufficient, such links should be treated privately, respecting the fact that I disclosed it only to the ArbCom. With the CU tools trusted to you, you see that I haven't used another account for a long time, or in the MRV where I was accused of bludgeoning, causing this block. I assume you know this already.

If you aren't "going to even consider unblocking", regardless that I've [refuted the accusations of disruption], that was rooted in COI, then what was the purpose of Your question? I've assumed good faith, and thought this is an innocent, routine question, thus following WP:ALTACCN policy will satisfy you. Other than that, I can only think this is just an effort to find another reason to block me, which is very disheartening. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 15:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Since you're so enamored of Arbcom, you can appeal to them. This is now a CU block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Some of your accounts are obviously interacting with each other, and since you won't even say what accounts you've used previously, you can deal with the only people you're williing to be open with. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you. Might I ask you (1) which point was the ground for checking, and (2) how a forgotten signature mistakenly added by another account becomes inappropriate use of alternative accounts? —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 16:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry I ever got involved in your unblock request. I'm putting you on my "ignore pings from this user" list. You were checked because I suspected you had used accounts prior to this one. Like I said, at least one of your accounts interacted with this one, and I don't even know how many others there are. Go talk to Arbcom. You won't be upfront with me, but apparently you will be with them. So, go talk to them and don't ping me (not that I'll receive your pings, anyway). If they (or any other checkuser) wants to unblock you or convert this to a normal block, that's perfectly OK with me – nobody needs to contact me. I'm concerned that you have more accounts that you refuse to disclose, and I suspect, based on what I've seen, that they may be interacting with each other. If they aren't, fine – someone will tell me that I'm being too paranoid and they will convert this back to a normal block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

You know what, I don't even care any more. It's no longer a CU block, and I don't want to have anything to do with you any more. Please, no one contact me about this editor; I've washed my hands of it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

To NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you for reverting the CU block. Might I ask you to also revert closing the unblock request with the reason: "Confirmed sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)", or am I allowed to do it? —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 18:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

For the record

I'd like to raise my concerns regarding the recent CU block. I have no intent to rant, or make accusations, this is just for the record, as required by WP:ADMINABUSE.
The one forgotten signature mistakenly made up by an alt 2+ months ago - that has nothing to do with WP:BADSOCK - was the evidence presented for the CU block. Other than that I was careful not to cross paths, or topics even. I've assumed good faith when explaining that I've followed WP:ALTACCN to declare this alt, and I'm disheartened by NinjaRobotPirate assuming bad faith to such a great extent, that escalating the block was necessary. I believe this qualifies as WP:TOOLMISUSE.
The 2 questions regarding the block were not answered ("(1) which point was the ground for checking, and (2) how a forgotten signature mistakenly added by another account becomes inappropriate use of alternative accounts"). The refusal to answer these queries civilly ("go talk to them and don't ping me") breaches WP:ADMINACCT ("Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed.").
It is hard to believe this was not a personal attack, as there seemed to be no intent to review the unblock request. WP:ADMINABUSE requires me to "express" these concerns and seek resolution directly. As NinjaRobotPirate asked me not to ping, this is the only way to communicate now, and I believe (s)he will read these concerns. As (s)he reverted the CU block, I do not intend to seek recourse for this issue, but I ask that a record of this incident be made in the form of a warning, listing the breach of ADMINACCT and TOOLMISUSE as a mistake: I still try to AGF, and want to believe this was not a personal attack. Thank you. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 18:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply