User talk:Le luxembourgeois

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Le luxembourgeois. Thank you. Night of the Raven (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Eric Roux for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eric Roux is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Roux until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nblund^talk 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of indef for block evasion and abusing multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 6 December 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).

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

Request reason:

Well, I actually have no idea why I have been blocked. I have never used multiple accounts, and never did any block evasion. I am definitely not Aidayoung, whom I don't know, except through wikipedia. I guess the only possible evidence would be to check IP addresses, which I can't do.Le luxembourgeois (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC) In fact, it looks that the fact that I participated to a discussion where Aidayoung was participating also, and that just after he was blocked, I posted something heading to the same direction, appeared like if I was him or her just him trying to evade the block (at least that is my understanding of what happened). Nevertheless, I repeat it, I don't know Aidayoung, and actually I did not know when I posted that he had been blocked. Please advise what can be done for me to get out of this misconception.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time as this is a sockpuppetry block. Please read and heed the relevant sections of the WP:GAB. If this is not your original account, you will need to appeal at your original account.-- Deep fried okra 01:13, 12 December 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.

On multiple occasions, both of you have gone days or weeks without editing, only to post in support of each other's comment within minutes of each other. Whether this is sock puppetry or meat puppetry, it is not plausible that this is all a coincidence. Grayfell (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not a coincidence? Only because it was speaking of CESNUR and I was interested in the topic. In 6 years, I found only 4 instances of aidayoung and me on the same page, and for a reason that is easily understandable if you think that CESNUR was a common interest. Yourself was also contributing on the same pages by the way. I suppose that it is because you had the same interest, even if of a different opinion.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 08:11, 13 December 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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Admin reviewer, first of all, I repeat it, I am not a sockpuppet of Aidayoung, neither a meatpuppet, and I don't know him. So I don't have any way to appeal on another account. That is my only chance. It is, as we know, difficult to prove that you are not something that you are not. Nevertheless, I checked what could give the impression that I would be a sockpuppet of Aidayoung. I'd like to explain why I think that there is no point in this accusation: I have been contributing to French Wikipedia since 2009, without any specific trouble. In 2013, I created an account on EN WP, hoping to have time to work on it. It has never been really the case. I only made a few contributions. I then had a first interraction with Aidayoung in 2018, when I voted against deletion of the entry on Oleg Maltsev. That is the first time we appear on the same page. Nevertheless my comment was short and not at all in a common style with Aidayoung. In 2019, I started to work on articles linked to Scientology, and other new religious movements. Maybe I should not have... So then there has been one other instance where Aidayoung intervened in a discussion on the talk page of article Eric Roux, a page that I had myself created. And finally, I did two comments on pages where Aidayoung was present: one on RS Noticeboard and one on Admin Noticeboard incidents. That is all. The reason I intervened in these articles is because I was defending the Journal of CESNUR as a RS. That is my opinion, and I understand it be not shared. Nevertheless, in 6 years, you'll find only (at least that is what I found) these 4 instances where we appear on the same page. While his interventions are very long and detailed, mine are not. We don't have at all the same style when we write. I also see that there has been no Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations before blocking me. Shouldn't it be the case? I would also appreciate any advice in order to better evidence my case.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2020 (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.

As I said above, it is simply not plausible that this is a coincidence, and these comments don't address this issue. Multiple times, these accounts had not edited for days or weeks, and then both of the accounts edit within the same hour, in support of the exact same perspective. This spans multiple Wikipedias. Within an hour of the Le luxembourgeois account's edits at at fr:Discussion: Éric Roux / Suppression, the Aidayoung account supports the same perspective. That account had not edited the French Wikipedia in several months prior. The exact same thing happens months later at the English Wikipedia at Talk:Eric Roux, where the Aidayoung accounts comments half an hour after this one in support of the same perspective. And again, at Talk:Oleg Maltsev (psychologist), this accounts shows up twenty minutes after Aidayoung, and supports the exact same perspective. The Le luxembourgeois account had not edited English Wikipedia in the 17 days prior to that. This pattern happened multiple times. It is not plausible that editors, even if they share this topic of interest, would edit the same obscure talk pages, and the same noticeboards, all at the same time. Grayfell (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand these points and tried to address them. I can't tell why aidayoung intervened in the two occurences you mention on pages that I was contributing to (at each time on the Eric Roux talk pages, once in French WP once in ENglish WP). But for the ones I intervened on when he was also already contributing on them, I was following the accounts that had entered in discussion with me previously about CESNUR and the reliability of the journal of CESNUR, including you (and actually not aidayoung). The reason is that I really think that the Journal of CESNUR should be considered as an RS. As I said, you speak of a period of 10 years (if you include French WP)... If I was a sockpuppet of aidayoung, I guess there would have been more occurence, and that you would have found more ground for suspicion, like writing style, or even common IPs. Why no SPI opened?--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, whether this is sock puppetry or meat puppetry, it is not plausible that this is all a coincidence. The timing, content, and rhetorical style of these edits is extremely similar. Asking other people to do even more work to prove the obvious is grasping at straws, and is (unfortunately) another point of similarity between these two accounts. Grayfell (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree with you. Moreover, your last sentence is like saying that the fact that I try to prove my innocence is a strong evidence that I'm guilty. Does not give me any chance... Please assume good faith toward me, and just take the point of view that maybe what you call the "obvious" is not the case, and you'll understand better my position. Hope so.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 08:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Grayfell. Please tell me if there was any SPI that came to this conclusion? ? Those that I found speak more likely in favor of Aidayoung.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has been the subject of an ongoing decade-long campaign of sock/meatpuppet promotion by Scientology and CESNUR. The pattern is real and genuine problem. Wiser minds than mine have concluded Le Lux fits this pattern, and their reasoning makes sense to me. Feoffer (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I will ask once again: in which place this "minds" made this conclusion?--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator noteIf the unblock is declined, perhaps it is time to revoke TPA? @Le luxembourgeois: Please reread the part of the GAB pertaining to sock puppet blocks.-- Deep fried okra 14:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reread it numerous times, but I don't see what part you think I am not applying. By the way, what is TPA?--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Should user's block appeal be viewed favorably (by another admin or by ARBCOM) I would like to suggest an unblock condition of a topic ban on Scientology and Scientologists.-- Deep fried okra 14:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care, but why? I have not been engaged in any abuse regarding editing (no edit warring, no bad behaviour, no conflict). The only thing that has been reproached to me is being a sock puppet, which I deny as explained above.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 13:21, 18 December 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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked on suspicion of being a sockpuppet of Aidayoung, which I'm not. I already gave several arguments above, which obviously have not convinced the admins who reviewed it (the second denial for unblock was a procedural decline). I have not been disruptive neither in conflict with anyone, and as said the suspicion of sockpuppetry is the only rational for blocking me. But actually, I realized that while there have been no new Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations before blocking me, I did not mention that in the past there has been one sockpuppet investigation on me as a sockpuppet of Aidayoung on 28 August 2018, and another one on the 30 August. Both have concluded that I was not a sockpuppet of Aidayoung. In addition, the one who filed the investigation was a sock... However, this is, to my knowledge, the only regular consensus existing regarding this issue. So, without repeating myself with the previous arguments, I kindly ask to see my blocking lifted, as I intend to contribute positively to Wikipedia.Le luxembourgeois (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2020 (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.