Hi Aron Manning,

If you believe the CheckUser tool has been abused, you should contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org. They also may review CheckUser blocks.
You may also contact the Wikimedia Foundation Ombudsman Commission by following the instructions here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OC
If you wish to appeal a non-CU block while you lack talk page access, you should do so through the UTRS system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UTRS
English Wikipedia CheckUser and Oversighter

On Monday, July 1, 2019, Aron Manning

This email contains 4 letters about the actions I experienced, to reduce number of emails.

  1. To all Functionaries, regarding the recent misuse of CheckUser tool, and private information published,
  2. To admin NinjaRobotPirate,
  3. To admin Bbb23,
  4. To all Functionaries, regarding an unjustified block by involved admin.

Thank you for taking the time to address the issues presented.

(1) Dear CheckUsers and Functionaries

I have alt accounts for privacy reason, that I declared only to the ArbCom (as required by WP:ALTACCN policy). Recently these accounts were made public by a mistaken CheckUser action by NinjaRobotPirate, that alleged abusive use of these alt accounts based on a signature made 2 months ago, - mistakenly - from another browser, logged in as the alt account. I'd like to ask that the edits undisclosing this private information be removed from the public history. This includes a category, one edit on each user page, and the block log comments.

I'm grateful for NinjaRobotPirate reverting this CU block within minutes on my main account, but by mistake the alt accounts are still blocked, and the unblock request still states "Confirmed sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)". I kindly ask CheckUsers to revert those as well.

Thank you for your service protecting private information, and upholding the policies for the community's benefit.

(2) Dear NinjaRobotPirate

In response to your ... on my talk page: I'm also sorry you got involved with the unblock request, although I never invited you to do so. I tried to explain that “as required by WP:ALTACCN I was "up front" declaring to ArbCom for "privacy reasons". ”, and I trusted your good judgement that a forgotten signature 2 months ago, made up mistakenly from another browser (logged in as the alt account), would not necessitate such severe allegations as "operator has abusively used multiple accounts". In the context of an unblock request I cannot see this other than a personal attack, to escalate my debated block. The sock puppetry notes are still on the user pages, causing me harm by defamation.

I did not know you before, and haven't experienced other incivility from you, therefore I would be happy to let this incident remain in our past, and start with a clean sheet, with a guarantee: this won't happen again, even if I mistakenly use the wrong account. Please consider this as a possible, peaceful path forward.

(3) Dear Bbb

I hope all is well for you. I understand we've been in a conflict since I questioned your neutrality ca. 2 months ago, after ANI and ANEW cases were closed, with the evidence of wrongdoing ignored. I'm very sorry for that, and I hope we can come to a peaceful resolution soon. I believe you will find in yourself, that peaceful cooperation is beneficial to both of us and the encyclopedia.

I'm contacting you here and now, as my TPA was revoked in response to my concerns regarding the recent mistake by NinjaRobotPirate. "Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions." (WP:ADMINACCT
I did my best to abide by that policy, and objectively list the rules disregarded by that mistake. I'm sorry if that sounds improper, or despises somebody. I'm open to rewording it if the more experienced editors can suggest a better form to properly list these policies and issues.

As I did my best to follow WP:ADMINACCT policy, assuming the best faith I could in this situation, I hope you might reconsider the need to block my talk page access.

Regarding the original block you made 2 weeks ago: I don't know, what are the "persistent disruptive edits" that I was blocked for indefinitely. I know of 4 edits in 3 days in a faulty ANEW case, that were repeatedly reverted by the editor, who initially ignored my attempt for a content dispute, then answered with personal attacks instead of a discussion, and just recently posted on my talk page. That dispute was about adding one tiny reference.

To better understand the reason for this indefinite block, please provide an exhaustive list of the diffs that you find disruptive. I'm sorry, if this takes up your time. "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed." (WP:ADMINACCT).

Thank you for helping to understand your reasons.

(4) To all Functionaries, regarding the block

In before further accusations of "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia", I'd like to refute such claims. 
In the recent move review (MRV) dispute, where my block originated, I did many hours of research to find and collect the relevant policies implied in the Request to Move (RM), and Move Review (MRV) discussions. 
I wrote a verbose analysis in user space (119KB, minus 77KB original RM discussions): to help determine the consensus of the wider Wikipedia community, as required by WP:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Determining_consensus. This was done with the clear intent to improve the discussion, with factual evidence, thereby contribute to the quality of the encyclopedia. My contribution was significantly more effort than others', and I revised my summary in the MRV many times, therefore I made the second most edits to that project page.

It was bold to do so, even in the face of personal attacks by opposers in the MRV, further proving that - even when threatened - I intend to contribute to the encyclopedia with quality content. My previous contributions to the article namespace are also backed by many hours of research, and consensus-seeking on talk pages.

I made mistakes when I replied to those, who opposed the evidence I posted. I did this in good faith, believing factual evidence and policy citations would help coming to an agreement. I was wrong, my assertiveness was unsuccessful in creating a beneficial discussion in these cases. In the future I intend to be more mindful of this.

The allegations of "bludgeoning" and disruption first appeared in these failed discussions, coming from opposers, with a conflict-of-interest. I believe these aren't an objective evaluation of my actions, but an unfortunate side-effect of this dispute. As I pointed out above, the many hours of effort put into my contributions, are with the intent to improve the encyclopedia, not to create disruption.


Further cause of the block might be that we were in a conflict with the blocking admin just a month ago, when he said "I don't see you lasting very long", and promised "I'm monitoring your edits", that I understood as a threat. The block took place without any warning, 22 hours after the first accusation, and just less than 1 hour after the second accusation by the editor opposing my analysis, thus it might be so, that said admin followed through with his promise. "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." (WP:INVOLVED policy)

It's been 2 weeks to do introspection. I've done my part and learned from the mistakes made. 
The block - just or unjust - achieved its purpose, thus unless 'indefinite' is another word for 'infinite', the block is no longer necessary.


In light of all these I ask the kind consideration of uninvolved Functionaries to give a "proper trial" (TPA and email unblocked), if evidence provided so far is not sufficient to warrant completely unblocking my main account.

I'd like to add that a timely and civil solution would be supportive of ArbCom's position that "established local processes" are sufficient to handle "behavioural complaints". 
It's been 2 weeks so far without one helpful response from ArbCom. The only gestures I received was disabling email, and another CheckUser escalating the block to my alt accounts as alleged sock-puppets.

Thank you for taking the time to understand this unfortunate situation.

Yours sincerely,
Aron Manning