Micericky

Welcome Micericky!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 39,313,983 registered editors!

Hello Micericky. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Micericky, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style   The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest   Don't commit vandalism   Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:   Ask a question

or you can:   Get help at the Teahouse

or even:   Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:   Fight vandalism   Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome   Help contribute to articles   Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you   Help design new templates   Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your userpage.

Please remember to:

• Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
• Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
  

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

Sincerely, Micericky (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)

• Español
• Deutsch
• Français
• Italiano
• עברית
• Русский
• 日本語
• Polski
• فارسی

Pages needing help

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_needing_copy_edit

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki2008time, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 16:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I AM NOT A SOCK

What a thing to come home to after work. I am not a sock, and apparently I am not able to defend myself anywhere except on my talk page because this is the only place where I still have editing privileges.

Banning me because of being a "likely" sock is shocking... Is it worse to kill an innocent man for a crime he did not commit, or to let a guilty man walk free? Unless you find proof beyond a reasonable doubt, you are killing an innocent man here.

Being Canadian is not against policy. Creating my account on the same day as other people creating their accounts is not against policy.

I am not a sock. I would like to ask for an appeal of the decision to block me based on being "likely". I don't know how to request an appeal. Please advise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Micericky (talk • contribs) 00:53, June 24, 2020 (UTC)

See WP:UNBLOCK for instructions on how to appeal. Meters (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not a sock and I have been blocked because of coincidences that make it "likely", but does that not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Where is the proof? I am not on a VPN, there are several things that are different about me vs. the sockpuppeteer as I stated in the sockpuppet investigation page, and this is an injustice.

Decline reason:

A simple denial is insufficient, as every sockpuppeteer denies doing so. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is not required as this is not a criminal trial- but this is a checkuser block, meaning that there is technical evidence to support it(technical evidence that only checkusers are permitted to see, I can't even see it). If you are not a sock, you will have to provide a plausible explanation as to why the technical evidence might indicate that you are. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

@331dot: Note that only one of the three CUs at the SPI justified the connection between Micericky and Wiki2008time with technical evidence. One of the CUs doesn't even believe that technical evidence connects Micky to Wiki2008time, and finds their arguments at SPI convincing. So IMO, I think Micky is not a sock and may have been a victim of coincidence. Of course, if Micky would be unblocked, that should be done by Maxim himself, by consensus of the functionaries, or as a last resort, the arbitration committee, since this is a CU block. Pandakekok9 (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: Where on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki2008time#Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments are you seeing "technical evidence to support it". To me is looked like all 3 CUs were primarily using behavioural evidence? Nfitz (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a checkuser block, which typically means there is technical evidence to support it; that's what I went by; the SPI states "I would actually call the checkuser evidence Likely not based on a direct match per se but the totality of the circumstances/data." If that is in error, the case needs to be made with a checkuser as only a checkuser can authorize the removal of this block. 331dot (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: I don't even know what the technical evidence is, how can I provide a plausible explanation for things I haven't been told? All I know is "behaviour" makes sockpuppetry "likely". I responded in the sockpuppet investigation page about that (to the best of my knowledge). While one CU stated what you quoted, another stated, "I wouldn't call Wiki2008time and Micericky likely based upon technical evidence. At best "possible", and only because they're using the same vanilla configuration. Well, almost the same. Geographically, they show on opposite sides of a continent. I find Micericky's arguments here convincing, as well." I'm being prosecuted for something I didn't do and I'm not even aware of the evidence against me, which I'm told is only behavioural, and people aren't even in agreement about it. --Micky (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence is kept private, even from administrators, and only discussed in general terms because it being publicly known would allow vandals and socks to use that information to further evade detection. I can only tell you that you must either provide a reason that any technical evidence would indicate you are a sock if you are not, and or cite any disagreement in the SPI, in another unblock request. This is not a "prosecution" as Wikipedia is not a government with judicial powers. 331dot (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Per the above and per my statements and disagreement in the SPI. I do not know how to provide a reason about technical evidence because I do not know what the technical evidence is. All I know is that I surely must not have the same IP address as the sock because I do not know this person, and I am not on a VPN. I am unsure if you can check if someone is using a VPN, but please do check. If there are other things I need to address in technical evidence, let me know. I have explained the concerns about "behaviour similarities" in the SPI. There is some disagreement in the SPI and on my talk page about determining if I am a sock.

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, this request has been insufficient to convince any patrolling admin to unblock in the last month.

This is a procedural decline only, and you are welcome to appeal again, using a substantially reworded argument. SQL^{Query me!} 02:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

The technical evidence is a combination of the IP address(es) and user agent(s) you have been using. The behavioral evidence is listed in the SPI, and by itself, it is quite damning. You are the only editor so far to bring up VPNs, but since you do mention it, I don't believe at this point that your statements on the matter are truthful. You are more than welcome to email me (Special:EmailUser/Maxim) and we can discuss how it happened to be that you are editing from the specific IP address(es) as visible using the CheckUser tool. Maxim_(talk) 20:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Emailed you per your request. I don't think what you have is "damning" as another CU said the connection only looks "possible" not "likely". I don't know what "user agent" refers to, please elaborate. I brought up VPNs because I'm aware those can be used to change IP addresses, but wikipedia has VPNs blocked as I have noticed when I have tried to edit while torrenting - one cannot edit wikipedia on a VPN. That, in itself, should prove that I am a normal user on my own IP address and not a VPN. --Micky (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Maxim: I am unable to edit the SPI given how quickly you blocked me, and I would therefore like an opportunity to defend myself publicly as I would on the SPI, not just in private email. Let me know what "user agent" refers to and I will explain whatever I can in that regard. --Micky (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Micericky, the CheckUser has checked that you are the same IP address as the sock, and CheckUsers do not lie. There is a 99.999% possibility that you are the sockpuppet. Also, there is also behavioral evidence. {{3125A|talk}} 16:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

3125A, that's not how Checkuser works nor did anyone with this permission say that Micericky was using the same IP address as someone else... Maxim_(talk) 22:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The CheckUser did NOT say I am on the same IP address, they said that the sockpuppeteer is on the other side of the continent. Read the SPI properly before making such allegations. --Micky (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

(I am leaving in the morning for my annual camping trip with friends and will not be able to check this situation again until Monday, so don't misread my absence) --Micky (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with 331dot's assessment of the evidence. I note that your first few edits were to create a user page with the assertion that you previously edited as an IP, and decided to create an account, and to precociously welcome yourself on your talk page via the welcome template. Given your claim of having previously edited as an IP, can you provide some examples of edits that you made as an IP? This is presuming, of course, that your IP address is dynamic, and that providing such edits would therefore not expose a persistent IP address. Also, to be clear, have you ever registered an account other than this one, and if so, under what name? BD2412 T 05:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you keep track of every IP address you've had every time you've moved? Because I certainly don't. I typically move every 1-2 years due to my work situation and I have not made a record of my IP addresses. As I have said before, I edited CASUALLY over the years, which is why I did not care enough to make an account. I would google something, find the wikipedia article, and being the grammar nazi that I am, I cleaned up a few minor things here and there, etc. I never created an article from scratch or made any long contributions because I don't have the patience for such things. I never enjoyed making essays in school - why would I enjoy them after school? I do care about information being legible, grammatically correct, and appropriate for an encyclopedia. I have not done a single disruptive thing since making an account, so being accused of being someone's sockpuppet comes as a big surprise. Obviously I was better off editing casually as an IP user, considering what happens as soon as I make my first account. --Micky (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Maxim, you said to Micericky “The technical evidence is a combination of the IP address(es) and user agent(s) you have been using.” But I do not see what you base that on. For me, the most telling comment by any of the three CUs is by --jpgordon: “Geographically, they show on opposite sides of a continent.” I struggle to see how a sockpuppet could be editing from the same IP address(es) at that kind of distance. As this clearly comes down to behavioural similarities, and nothing else, could you please share your analysis here of how those create a balance of probabilities that Micericky is a sockpuppet? Moonraker (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh, it's entirely easy for one person to edit from IPs pretty much anywhere. That's no mystery. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 05:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I can verify that personally. I'm in Eastern Oregon but my IP routinely geolocates to Indianapolis. John from Idegon (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Thank you, --jpgordon. You also said on the investigation "I wouldn't call Wiki2008time and Micericky likely based upon technical evidence. At best "possible", and only because they're using the same vanilla configuration. Well, almost the same. Geographically, they show on opposite sides of a continent. I find Micericky's arguments here convincing, as well." So they weren’t editing from shared IPs? And their vanilla configuration was very similar but not quite the same? Moonraker (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
        • • I'm not going to discuss technical findings here beyond what I've already said; they're within my area of expertise. As far as behavior is concerned, after further conversation, I defer to admins more experienced with the users in question. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• The thing is, --jpgordon, I do think Micericky ought to have some plain facts here, for his defence. You said "I wouldn't call Wiki2008time and Micericky likely based upon technical evidence." That does surely confirm that you found no shared IP addresses. Which brings us back to Maxim. There needs to be some analysis of how a balance of probabilities was arrived at on behaviour: some kind of statistics for the factors that can be identified. Moonraker (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I can't defend myself on the SPI, I am blocked and can only defend myself on my talk page So apparently the checkuser info being used against me is "user agent" information. I asked about this in email with admin and was told "You asked what a user agent is. That is a combination of your operating system and browser versions. It is quite curious how you're using the exact same incrementally updated browser version as the two other accounts."

My response: I use Microsoft and I use Chrome. Both of those are probably the most common operating systems and browsers. Apple may also be common, but Microsoft is cheaper, so I would venture a guess that the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are on Microsoft. Chrome is also probably the most commonly used browser. Would you judge someone for using Google just like a sockpuppet, instead of Bing, when over 90% of online searches are done with Google? And I keep up with updates, as I imagine most people would do. Are we seriously holding it against me that I have the most up to date version of Microsoft and Chrome, as most people probably do given that most people have automatic updates turned on??

I don't know what to tell you about when the account was created. I would guess hundreds if not thousands of accounts get created on wikipedia on any given day, so accusing me of sockpuppetry by this argument would suggest that you should accuse all new accounts made on the same day and within the same country of a sockpuppeteer as being a possible sockpuppet. If you did that, you'd have a lot more frivolous and unfair accusations than just this one.

As for how I edit, I have pointed out differences in my editing already in the SPI. Note also that I see the other two accounts never did visual edits, and my primary mode of editing is visual edits. I think what is happening here is confirmation bias; you want to believe you are correct, so you only see evidence that supports sockpuppetry and refuse to acknowledge evidence that refutes it. --Micky (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the various edits by User:Xannir and User:Micericky at Redirects to Discussion, it's hard to believe they are different editors, given the similarity between the comment summaries (D) and the general style of all the comment. Is User:Micericky really saying that they have no relation with User:Xannir? Nfitz (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Micericky,

1. I use Linux and I can argue that Linux is the most popular.

2. Not everyone would think that Chrome is the most popular browser. After all, I use Firefox and Chrome.

3. Some people in China cannot search with Google and instead do Bing searches.

4. Your edit patterns are almost exactly the same as User:Xrandr (sorry, Xrandr)!User:Xannir, and also, there are multiple pieces of evidence, not because you both live in Canada or both accounts were created on the same day, but because of your edit patterns. {{3125A|talk}} 23:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Plus, 90% of your edits are absolutely not visual edits. {{3125A|talk}} 00:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

1. I assume when you said "Linux", you meant GNU/Linux. It is popular indeed in servers, but not in desktop (including laptops). As of June 2020, Windows has 86.67% of usage around the world. So you can't argue that GNU/Linux is the most popular. And even if we merge all GNU/Linux, Android, and Chrome OS usage into "Linux" (which does overtake Windows), we are clearly talking about desktop/laptop here, not mobile. Take away Android, and "Linux" doesn't even reach 2% world usage.

2. The minority who doesn't think that Chrome is the most popular browser doesn't matter. Statistics show that Google Chrome is the most used browser in the world, hence, it is the most popular browser. I always use Firefox (and hate Chrome with a passion), but I don't deny that Chrome is more popular than Firefox and the most popular browser in the world.

3. I don't see how that is relevant.

The rest of your points, I agree with. As time passes by, the more I am convinced now that Micericky is a sockpuppet. Sorry Micky, but your edits are just too similar to Xannir... You also lied about visual editing being your primary method of editing, when your contributions page clearly shows it is not. Pandakekok9 (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Google some stats. Agreed with Pandakekok9, Windows & Chrome are much more popular. Nobody is talking about China here so that argument is irrelevant. There are not multiple pieces of evidence. The only evidence you have is behavioural, and sure, my edits on discussions are not visual edits, but the vast majority of my edits on wikipedia articles themselves are mostly visual edits. I don't see any visual edits for these other users. As for other similarities, is it possible for people to edit similarly to others? Is it possible that some of you may have a similar editing style to another user from the same culture as you or whose editing style you may have picked up for whatever reason, without being a sockpuppet of that person? Is it possible that User:Xannir and I both have similar styles because we are both Canadian and probably talk with similar accents and were taught similar grammar rules in the same school system? Is it possible that we could have unintentionally picked up the editing style of a few other, completely unrelated users outside of us? Once again, this is a situation of confirmation bias. People are not even looking at the stats to determine whether or not Windows & Chrome are indeed the most common (they are) before accusing me of lying just because you've already all decided that I'm guilty and refuse to believe anything indicating otherwise. --Micky (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  Micericky, "The only evidence you have is behavioural" I don't think that you understand. The Canadian evidence and the account evidence are also pieces of evidence.

  " is it possible for people to edit similarly to others " Here's the thing, even if you edit very similarily to User:Xannir, you would still be blocked, see WP:MEATPUPPET. {{3125A|talk}} 10:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes I don't understand, because I explained how the Canadian evidence and account evidence was insufficient in my messages above, I pointed out how the user agents I used are the most common ones and it's ludicrous to hold the most common user agent against me. And you somehow thought arguing that they're not the most common user agents made sense, even though stats show otherwise and someone who doesn't even support me agreed that the evidence for user agent stuff is weak. And again, millions of people in Canada. As for meatpuppeting, editing similarly to someone else doesn't make me a meatpuppet. I am not a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet, I just happen to have similar grammar to most Canadians. --Micky (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  Micericky, Meatpuppet means that you have the same behavior as another account (Xannir in this case). Basically, editing articles on visual edits doesn't even make a difference. What we mean is what kind of things you edits and stuff. {{3125A|talk}} 16:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• 3125A, please read first what you are lecturing. Meatpuppetry doesn't necessarily mean "same behaviour". If that's what meatpuppetry is, a lot of innocent users would be blocked right now. Meatpuppetry is when someone recruits their friend to support their side in a discussion. Basically, it's canvassing and undermines the consensus decision making of Wikipedia. The recruit is what we call the meatpuppet. I'd also like to note that you can't be a meatpuppet and sockpuppet at the same time. A sockpuppet is the same person as the master, while a meatpuppet different from the master. Pandakekok9 (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)