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 Sockpuppet investigations/Le luxembourgeois. Thank you. Night of the Raven (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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 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)

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:. User:Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Hello, . 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

If the unblock is declined, perhaps it is time to revoke TPA? Please reread the part of the GAB pertaining to sock puppet blocks.--  Deep fried  okra    14:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)