User talk:Xiaomichel

Unblock discussion

You've not addressed the WP:socking -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, you will at least need to agree to a single account restriction. Others will also have opinions. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I am asking to be unblocked on this account and not on the sock accounts I created. I will use only one account. I am fully aware that the creation of multiple accounts is against the rules. Xiaomichel (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deepfriedokra, I see no evidence of misbehavior, and I'm fine with an unblock. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One account/1RR would be my conditions. Courcelles (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accept these conditions. Xiaomichel (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xiaomichel. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Girth Summit _(blether) 19:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit could you reconsider your conclusions please? I am really not connected to these accounts at all, I swear. It doesn't make any sense. I created sock accounts during my block but I haven't been blocked since March. Why would I create new accounts now? I know I would risk an immediate block, especially when these italian IPs are accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being me.

This situation is very unfair to me. I was eager to continue working on Wikipedia while respecting the rules after my previous experience. Now I've received this block for absolutely no reason. I haven't even participated in the articles associated with these accounts. Xiaomichel (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can appeal your block, another CU will review my findings and conclusions. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit I would like to discuss this with you. I could try to provide an explanation because these accounts are really not mine. Xiaomichel (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you could explain what I see in the CU data, but you can put any explanation you choose to in an unblock request, and the reviewing CU will factor that in. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you see in the CU data? How did you arrive at this conclusion? Xiaomichel (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very generally, CU allows me to see which IP addresses an account has edited from, and which other accounts have edited from those IP addresses. You have shared an IP address with one or more accounts that exhibit behaviour that others believed matched your earlier editing habits. One or more of those accounts then share different addresses and ranges with other accounts exhibiting similar habits. I'm not going to be more specific than that. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing an explanation. I use only one computer, which is connected to a Wi-Fi network shared in the building where I live on a campus. I assume my IP address is always the same. Are you telling me that one of these accounts used the same IP address as mine? I am surprised. I am certainly not the only one to have this IP address, but it would be a very unlikely coincidence if one of the accounts suspected to be mine used it. I know that this may sound ridiculous to you, especially if you already thought that we were all the same person, but could you please double-check? I am sure I haven't created any new accounts since my unblock. Xiaomichel (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New evidence against Frukko

@Valereee, @Belbury

There is an ongoing issue in articles related to food, involving edit wars between French and Italian IPs. French IPs have been incorrectly attributed to me despite the fact that I am not located in France and always edit from the same computer (which check-users can verify).

I was blocked after engaging in an edit war with Frukko. Since then, multiple IP addresses from Piedmont have been exhibiting similar editing behavior to Frukko, sometimes getting blocked but always returning with new IPs.

Riker4 made the same kind of accusation and know my story even if he is a very new user. He uses the same kind of expression as Frukko saying I am poisoning several wikis while Frukko wrote contaminating all italian food articles.

The IP addresses I previously reported, share the same ASN number. I mistakenly thought these were associated with JacktheBrown but I now realize they were actually used by Frukko. I apologize to @JacktheBrown for this misunderstanding.

I have conclusive evidence that Frukko has been using these IPs from the beginning, allowing him to avoid blocks for sockpuppetry:

Here Frukko admitted to using one particular IP address.

This IP (79.30.66.89 ) shares the same location and ASN number (3269) as all the IPs that have been vandalizing articles and making accusations against me since my initial block, for example:

79.54.217.132 (ASN 3269, Torino)

62.211.180.100 (ASN 3269, Torino)

95.249.19.123 (ASN 3269, Alba)

Yesterday, I've been accused of using sockpuppets again by 79.17.172.126 (see here), an IP that was previously blocked and shares the same location and ASN number (ASN 3269, Torino) as the others.

This pattern of shared ASN numbers and locations provides strong evidence linking these activities to Frukko.

I was unblocked in March but subsequently reblocked for using sockpuppet accounts. I will not discuss that matter here. I am not requesting to be unblocked, but I want to point out that edit wars are not conducted by a single account. It is unfair that Frukko can hide behind multiple IP addresses to avoid being blocked while continuing to engage in edit warring Xiaomichel (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can look into it. Valereee (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Xiaomichel (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, yes, those IPs all definitely look like the same person. But Frukko hasn't edited any of the same pages, and the 79.30 hasn't either, so hard to see a connection. Frukko's only been disruptive on that single food item, and that looks like the only food item they've ever edited; most of their edits are to places. Riker4, I do see the similar accusation, but for me that's not conclusive for bringing a request to SPI. And unfortunately SPI can't check users against IPs.

But the IPs, we can see the connection, and it's disruptive and likely socking from someone. Most of the articles these IPs are interested in were already protected, many of them within the last day so quite likely in response to this investigation, but those that weren't or that were set to expire soon, I've extended the protection. Valereee (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Valereee for your feedback,

-It all began when Frukko was blocked for editing the Agnolotti article. Some information I had added to the article remained after the page was protected, but this IP address directly removed it once the protection expired. It appeared to be a case of block evasion by Frukko. Since then, Frukko has ceased editing altogether. My opinion is that he started using these IP addresses to avoid being blocked.

-The first edit by Riker4 was to remove the French etymology of the word 'nduja. Immediately after, this newly registered user wrote a detailed report about me to an experienced user, even though we had never interacted before and I had not edited this article.

The pattern of removing any mention of France in an article, similar to Frukko's actions in the Agnolotti article, combined with the fact that Riker4 wrote a report about me using language similar to Frukko's, strongly suggests to me that they are the same person. As a result, a sockpuppet investigation (SPI) case could be opened.

-Regarding the IP addresses, Frukko appears to be using an IP with the same location and ASN number as a cluster of IPs that have been actively disrupting articles over the past year. While we cannot open a case based solely on IP addresses, this provides clear evidence that Frukko is being disruptive and not respecting the rules. These IPs were active on the Agnolotti article when Frukko was blocked, indicating block evasion.

-This has been an ongoing issue since Frukko was blocked. You say it's happening within the last days, but that's only because I've only sent you links to the more recent cases. In reality, this is a much older problem. For example, it happened a year ago (here and here) always with IPs having ASN number 3269 like Frukko.

Xiaomichel (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaomichel, you're going to need to stop discussing other people's possible socking on your talk while you're blocked -- the only thing you should be discussing here while blocked is the steps you'd need to take to get unblocked, and that's unlikely to happen any time soon. I will keep an eye out, and I'm sure others will too, and that's going to have to be good enough.

I understand you're frustrated, but I am just not seeing the connection. Let it drop. Go edit actively and nondisruptively somewhere else, such as simple wikipedia, and come back in a year with that productive history behind you, promise to never sock again, and then don't sock. You aren't smarter than our checkusers, and other editors are actively watching for you to sock. Valereee (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I mistakenly thought these were associated with JacktheBrown but I now realize they were actually used by Frukko. I apologize to @JacktheBrown for this misunderstanding." Xiaomichel, I sincerely accept your apology and forgive you, but there's no point in keeping this. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee Ok I understand, Thank you anyway. @JacktheBrown You are right, sorry. I have just deleted it. Xiaomichel (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee

Frukko comes to my talk page to provoke and gives us new elements that show he is using multiple accounts:

Riker4 wrote "same agenda of clear French chauvinist origin"

Frukko wrote "despite the havoc he is causing "

Frukko wrote "to cause havoc all over the place"

79.22.74.230 wrote "he is creating a lot of havoc here on Wikipedia" and same agenda"

95.235.74.15 wrote "he is creating a lot of havoc here on Wikipedia" and same agenda"

95.239.78.209 wrote "he is creating a lot of havoc here on Wikipedia" and same agenda"

80.181.83.68 wrote "he is creating a lot of havoc here on Wikipedia" and same agenda" Xiaomichel (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly socks, but not clearly Frukko. I'm going to give you a pass on this because Frukko did just come in here to provoke, but you need to stop talking about this. Others are quite likely seeing it. Valereee (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by IP ASN3269

Are you still going on with that? Your IP has been linked to France by check users. The same group of IPs you have has been linked to your sockpuppets, all of which has been gravitating towards the articles you showed interest to, the last of which is currently being examine to and who may not be a sock, but it's suspiciously exhibiting your same writing patterns

Now you're violating, blatantly,Wikipedia:Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack instead of trying to defend yourself

How about you try to be a good contributor, even without an account? You had another chance and you blew it if I'm not wrong 79.17.172.126 (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check users can easily see that I am not in France. And you are Frukko, same location and same ASN number as him. Xiaomichel (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, as Valeree showed you, while check users confirmed you're from France, using puppets or, alternatively, IPs like 93.23.14.246 and 77.205.68.13

And stop accusing everybody of being Frukko or JackBrown and then whining to everybody you're misunderstood 79.17.172.126 (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then create an account. Xiaomichel (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the issue here 79.17.172.126 (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee can you protect my talk page? Xiaomichel (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi'd one month. Valereee (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Xiaomichel (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]