User talk:AManningTalk

Welcome to Wikipedia! We are building a multilingual copyleft encyclopedia that will always belong to everyone. We started in January 2001 and are now working on articles in the English version. Join us! Visit the Community Portal or experiment in the sandbox to find out how you can edit any article right now. For information on how and where you can help see, Contributing to Wikipedia

July 2019
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you confirm with a simple yes or no that you have appealed to Arbcom?


 * No. I made no appeal to ArbCom regarding this block. — AManningTalk (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Clarification

 * My messages to ArbCom were behavioral complaints, and requests to remove private information. These were declined by an oversighter.
 * I did not intend to appeal, as NinjaRobotPirate promptly revoked his decision (block log of main account):
 * "You know what, I don’t even care any more. It’s no longer a CU block, [...]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)” (diff)
 * I consider the block still being in effect a procedural error. I've tried to contact NinjaRobotPirate about this, but he refuses to communicate:
 * "go talk to them and don't ping me (not that I'll receive your pings, anyway)." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC) (diff)


 * I've contacted ArbCom (message) with a behavioral complaint on 30 June, not to appeal. "Messages are normally acknowledged by an arbitrator within 48 hours." (WP:ArbCom). This message was not acknowledged in a week - despite repeated requests -, therefore I consider the report to be ignored or declined.
 * A related request to remove private information, and complaint - also not an appeal - (message), that I've sent to the Functionaries list - received by Arbitrators as well -, was declined twice. Answer: "The functionaries list [...] will not be further replying to your emails on this topic.
 * A related request to remove private information, and complaint - also not an appeal - (message), that I've sent to the Functionaries list - received by Arbitrators as well -, was declined twice. Answer: "The functionaries list [...] will not be further replying to your emails on this topic.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no further correspondence between ArbCom and me that I expect a response to. The last emails were not acknowledged at all, despite the urgency to remove private information linking these accounts, and harmful sockpuppetry allegations.
 * For privacy reasons these alternative accounts were declared only to ArbCom (acknowledged message). Please take care to redact the main account from the block log entries, and to delete the category that lists the alt accounts as sockpuppets. Thank you.
 * — AManningTalk (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Other admins may be contacting you on this talk page pursuant to your UTRS appeal as I have released the hold on it and directed them here since your main account has talkpage access revoked.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a bit confusing situation, as the UTRS appeal is in regards of the debated DE block of the main account (diff 17 June), that was not justified upon inquiry. The CU block on this account is the remnant of a revoked action (diff 29 June). Please clarify how and when the sockpuppet claims will be removed, thank you. Also: "releasing the hold" is not defined at WP:UTRS; could you elaborate? — AManningTalk (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * When a user is blocked, it means all of their accounts are blocked. Per WP:MULTIPLE, "Because policies apply to individuals, not accounts, blocked or banned users must not use sock puppets to circumvent a block; doing so will result in an extension of the block or ban." Therefore your alt accounts remain blocked as long as there is a block on your main account.
 * Yesterday, a hold was placed on your UTRS appeal after I commented that I thought that you had appealed to Arbcom and that appeals should not run concurrently. I had seen where you had written that you has asked Arbcom to undo the CU action and presumed this was through a formal appeal. To be clear, the hold was placed after I said that I would try to get confirmation that an Arbcom appeal was in the queue and asked them to wait for feedback. After your response today, I accepted your reply in good faith and responded that there was not an Arbcom appeal and released the hold myself. The total amount of time that your UTRS appeal was on hold was approximately 24 hours. After just looking, I believe that someone has responded to you and closed the appeal.


 * Thank you for your thorough explanation. Regarding WP:MULTIPLE: as NinjaRobotPirate revoked the CU block, I believe a normal block is necessary at most for the alts, not a CU block. A CU block will mislead admins looking to review the unblock request, as the original block is a non-CU block, that any admin can review. Also, the policy does not necessitate a block for the alts, only prohibits the use of those.
 * Regardless, the bigger problem is the harmful false information on the user pages stating sock puppetry, and the category listing the alt accounts. This is private information, that shouldn't be visible. I'm unable to correct this until I'm unblocked. Would you kindly resolve this? Thank you in advance. — AManningTalk (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

UTRS response
To UTRS appeal #25825:

Hello Aron Manning, It seems this is you. As that is the case, you still have access to your talk page, and as there is no private information associated with your appeal, please post your unblock request to your user talk page for administrator review. You can follow these instructions. However, as the above referenced user is you, you were block evading and socking as recently as June 2, 2019. Please bear that in mind. Please also bear in mind that accusations against other users do not a successful block appeal make. Also, please bear in mind that you will need to take ownership of the causes of your original block and detail how you will avoid such problems going forward. Thank you, Dlohcierekim English Wikipedia Administrator

Hello, ping: AManningTalk (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This response is very confusing.


 * The link you provided says
 * I assume you mean the present account:

> "you were block evading and socking as recently as June 2, 2019."
 * This account was declared as an alternative account in that edit on June 2 (permalink): Main account: Aron Manning
 * My main account was at that time (log).

Please explain, what do you mean by "you were block evading and socking"? — AManningTalk (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. I stand corrected? Is taht a different account from this one? You seem to have a lot of them. So perhaps I was right all along. Please see the block notice on your user page. Apparently, I miss-read your user name. This is the right one. As I have dealt with you via UTRS, I will leave further consideration of your block to those who will come to it fresh. At any rate, we are now moving forward, and that is good.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure I understand you. So to clarify I have 3 accounts, 1 old that I intended to keep private (thus I don't name it), but it was leaked; this one for not article related discussion, and the main account that you linked now . It's similar, intentionally.  —  Aron M🍂  (contrib)    – AManningTalk (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Got it. "Is taht a different account". NO. Same account: log with ending date set to June 3,   full log   —  Aron M🍂  (contrib)    – AManningTalk (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The rest of your comment I don't understand. Especially: "see the block notice on your user page". DeltaQuadBot has closed it, as you have closed it in UTRS. Do I miss something? I'm happy we are moving forward, thank you for that!  —  Aron M🍂  (contrib)    – AManningTalk (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:AManningTalk is your new/old/present user page. Sorry I mangled it the first time. I thought I'd duplicated the "talk". Complex essential tremors, you know. Or some such. On top of User:AManningTalk you will see a notice. Not sure what DeltaQuadBot has to do with it. Good night. I'm for bed  Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * : closed the UTRS notice on User_talk:Aron Manning: diff. I don't see any other notice, anywhere: 1. not on top of User:AManningTalk, nor on top of User_talk:AManningTalk, neither in your contribs. A diff would be a helpful pointer. Good night.   —  Aron M🍂  (contrib)    – AManningTalk (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What notice should I see? A diff would be a helpful pointer. —  Aron M🍂  (contrib)    – AManningTalk (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping.. This here is the dif Cheers,   Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I see, you mean that. I certainly saw it on 30 June, as I recall. You can't imagine, how surprised I was. The declaration of the main account replaced by a sockpuppet notice??
 * Anyway, NinjaRobotPirate revoked that action ("It’s no longer a CU block", see diff and block log), as there was no abusive use of multiple accounts (my old account was inactive).
 * I would appreciate if this harmful information (the diff you linked) would be reverted to the declaration of the main account, for good measure. It seems this was forgotten, and I'm blocked from fixing it. —  Aron M🍂  (contrib)    – AManningTalk (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request
For per UTRS appeal #25825 response: "please post your unblock request to your user talk page" - Dlohcierekim

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You have a claim that I'm going to refute.
 * You were not "upfront" concerning VALIDALT at all. You only tried to follow that after you were asked about it by a checkuser. "Forgotten signature" seems to be a euphemism for I signed it with another of my undeclared accounts.
 * Your "Forgotten signature" is perfect grounds for running a check and many sockmasters have been caught that way. Simply put, you were either falsifying a signature or were the owner of an undeclared account. Lo and behold, he was justified as it was proven to be true.
 * Your failure to disclose your accounts to a checkuser when asked is unacceptable. You do not get to stipulate that only Arbcom may know about it. Hint: He already knew and was looking for you to be truthful and you could have emailed him the response naming the accounts. Instead, you went from the frying pan into the fire by refusing. This is part of the greater problem in that you were uncooperative.
 * Your bad faith jump to suggest that he was making a personal attack is a hallmark of your combative battleground behavior. Yes, it is disruptive behavior. I would have reservations about cutting you loose back into the general Wikipedia populace with an unblock. They deserve better.
 * I suggest that you remove your other unblock request on your other account.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)