User talk:Aron Manning/Archive 1

Talk Page comment in the middle of previously posted comment

I have removed a comment you made on the talk page of the ET302 crash.

": Reworded; was part of my opinion/speculation." [[1]]

Please be careful WHERE you place your Talk Page comments. NEVER insert your own comments in the middle of previously posted comments by another editor. That is a hard and fast "No, No" rule stated here: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page."

"Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent. In your own posts you may wish to use templates to quote others' posts."

[[2]]

Thank you, EditorASC (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EditorASC: Thanks, I forgot this.

Aron M contrib📤 🍂 talk 18:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Dispute: EditorASC

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

SPI list

I don't know what you intend to do with this so-called User:Aron Manning/SPI list, but I'm assuming it's preparatory to filing a report at WP:SPI. You need to know, though, that you are only permitted to keep such an "attack page" in your userspace for a very limited period of time. Otherwise, it will be deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: One SPI is done already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/86.187.162.57/Archive Where do I put it so it's not 'attack page'? Out of courteousness I did not post it to ANI, and hid it in a user page. People don't need to be so paranoid. I'm experiencing cultural shock :-D

Should I post it to SPI in this form? —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 02:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

You cannot "post" your list to SPI in its current form. If you wish to file another report, you'll need to follow the normal form at SPI, including at least a master, one or more suspected puppets, and diffs showing that they are behaviorally connected. If there are one or more named accounts, the oldest created named account should be the master (an IP can never be a master if there is a named account in the report). Do not request a CU if there is only one named account and the suspected puppets are IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the master, that should be investigated by matching the IP range of the isp (both ips come from the same range) with the editors involved with the article, without disclosing the editors ip. What's the proper form of this? —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 16:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

If you're not sure about the master, you can't file an SPI report. Also, policy prohibits disclosing the IP(s) of named accounts, so no one is going to "match" the IPs with the "editors involved". This sounds very much like a fishing expedition, which would be rejected if you filed it ("Fishing is to check an account where there is no credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry.").--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: As these are dyn ips, changing between commits, its likely the editor's ip is in the same range, but different, so no disclosure. The evidence is: 2 diffs repeating 2 deletes within just 2 hours after I reverted those. The deletes happened without consensus (not even mentioned in the ongoing discussion), with bogus comments, that had been refuted since. It is naturally occurring thought that said editor (who also posted a WP:EXPLODE earlier that day) would log out, hop ip, do the reverted deletions again. Even the edit comments reflect his style and thinking, though there is a slight chance another editor was hiding behind the ips. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 18:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Policy doesn't distinguish between dynamic and static IPs. No disclosure period.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you. I'm sorry for taking your time. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 19:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Content dispute resolution: EditorASC

First, deleted message

^{Originally posted at: User_talk:EditorASC#Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_302}

Dear EditorASC!

I'd like to address your last post [ Additional Comments about proposed analysis section ] (diff) and following actions. I respect your experience and your opinion, but that does not necessarily mean I agree. I agreed with you on many points, but seemingly not enough.

I hoped to exit the discussion that ended in [ anger ] by not answering, so we can focus on other matters, without crossing paths until the emotions have calmed down. We are involved in a controversial topic, thus our opinions should not matter so much as to disrupt editing.

There have been two edits (diff 1, diff 2) in the article section being discussed, removing contributions of other editors, without ever discussing those, or reaching consensus. As your only contributions on the article are adding a heading and two sentences, it would be more beneficial to positively contribute to the article, instead of [ disrupting ] editors' work, who contributed more than 100 times, to take [ revenge ]. This action and numerous previous posts has been detrimental to editing: steering the article to a specific POV (diff), long, distracting discussions about minute details or misinterpreted sentences, unrelated accidents (diff), moving article discussion to user talk page (diff), and the looming presence of an accident-analyst and professional pilot acting as authority in a controversial topic, but not contributing his expertise to the article.

We respect your opinion, thus we will address your concerns in the talk page section [ Discussion: 'unable to move the trim wheels by hand' and 'Speculation' section ] to improve the questioned sentences. Your edit comments will be the starting point of the discussion. For the health and peace of the discussion it would be a sign of good intention, to let only the contributing editors participate in it.

I regret I had to write about this, and I'm saddened by the unwelcoming experience, that flipped my newcomer's assumptions of the cooperative nature of wikipedia. I still hope to have more positive experiences in the future, and to be able to communicate peacefully.

I'm sorry for anything I wrote that offended you. Please understand, I've been communicating with the hope we can share and learn from each other's opinion.

To give time to let go of this unfortunate outcome, I won't be responding to your posts for some time, a few days at least. Thank you for your understanding.

Aron M contrib📤 🍂 talk 05:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Second message, deleted

^{Originally posted at: User_talk:EditorASC#Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_302}

Dear EditorASC!

I kindly ask you, why did you delete two sentences from the "Analysis section" without first seeking consensus in [ Talk:Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_302#Discussion:_Analysis_section ], where contributing editors were already reviewing and discussing that section?

Aron M contrib📤 🍂 talk 11:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third message

To editor EditorASC:

Edit: As the questioned edit actions seem to have stopped, this message has been removed out of courteousness to the other party.

Aron M contrib📤 🍂 talk 18:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

May 2019

Please do not post on my talk page any more. You may blank this once you have read it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelpillow: No more cheers ;-) Please reiterate wikipedia policies regarding talk pages and do some introspection to understand where you made the mistake. Thank you. —Aron M🍂 (🛄📤) 07:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]