Misconceptions2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

Report date January 2 2010, 15:16 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Mirroryou1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Admit-the-truth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 188.221.108.172 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• XxGustakhxX (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by Bali ultimate

Misconception2 is involved in heated editing at a new article he just created Muhammad and assassinations (article since speedily deleted). In December he was blocked a week for sockpuppetting with User:Muhammadproject. Mirroryou1 shares this users problems with the english language and point of view, and has so far confined itself to reverting to his prefered version. Mirroryou1 was used earlier today to avoid 3rr. Admit-the-truth has already been blocked for peristend copyvios (the same persistent copyvio problems Misconceptions2 has had) but include it as a point of reference.

The underlying issue is that we have a very, very strong pov-battler on our hands who is much more interested in making some point or other about Islam (I'm not sure what it is exactly beyond "Islam is bad") and the extent of the disruption should at least be limited. Bali ultimate (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an IP address. Misconceptions2 has since been given a block for edit waring, and appears to be using the IP, which geolocates like the rest of his socks and IPs to the manchester, UK area. The IP is edit warring here[1] to maintain another of Misconception2's content forks.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up. The IP I added was included in the previous case. The checkuser on the last case (from december 8) implied, but did not specifically state, that the IP belong to Misconceptions2. The checkuser wrote: "User:Български360 and User:Admit-the-truth indefinitely blocked and tagged. I'll leave the block on the sockmaster and the IPs as-is and see what happens; if they come back. Then longer blocks may be needed." I believe that time has come.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added the account beginning XX because it's brand new and engaging in one of the obscure edit wars Misconceptions2/Mirroryou1 were engaged in.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

I have been accused of sockpuppetry last time. I am only the roomate of Misconceptions and i live nextdoor to him.

i have a different IP and My ISP is: O2

I think the case is not sockpuppetry but meat puppetry this user is refering to--Mirroryou1 (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is it, Mirroryou? Do you "live next door to him" or are you "his roomate." Ah, the webs we weave....Bali ultimate (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://s758.photobucket.com/albums/xx224/cloud-360/

here is some pictures of my internet--Mirroryou1 (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is up with you people. I have a different computer different ip, different isp than him. I got banned for meat puppetry before for 1 week and i wasnt allowed to defend myself!

now i am defending myself. i will upload some pictures to show you

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for unblocking me. I am in the process of chaging my wirless interet WEP key. please, if another account gets made with my same ip, it is not me. I will report him if he makes another, becuase just a minute ago he got me banned--Mirroryou1 (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is pahetic
Arghhh, this is pathetic. Why dont you use the checkuser thing allready and get this overwith. Also hat Gustahkh account is definately not Misconception. It is somone else. Just because peopel dont share your views does not mean u can accuse them . You just dont want people reading articles critical of Islam.

Secondly, Misconceptions2 was permenately banned mistakenly. The guy who made an edit on the caravan raids with the ip was me. Not misconceptions2. He got perma banned wrongly and i will do everything to get him unbanned.He did not edit war after ban!!!-Mirroryou1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirroryou1 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the Gustak user is not misconceptions2, i know so, since he told me !PLEASE USE CHECK USER ALREADY!!!!--Mirroryou1 (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And after this is over. Please get Misconceptios2 perma ban removed. Because he did not edit war after ban.he got perma ban for accusation that he edit warred after ban. but the person who edited the caravan raids article, was me,i told u this many times.I will forgive misconceptions2 for purposely trying to get me banned.Its not fair that he get banned because of me, and that u accuse me of being him !!--Mirroryou1 (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Misconceptions2 said nearly the same sentence that Mirroryou1 said above [2], but Mirroryou1 saying that doesn't make sense, if he is not Misconceptions2, because he was not accused before, AFAIK. Misconceptions2 apparently said it about another account, not Mirroryou1, because he said "his account was banned". The time of registering the account, editing times and editing the same pages are very strong hints. Sole Soul (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The extraordinary thing is that Mirroryou1 is using the exact same argument as Misconceptions2 when he was previously banned on Dec-08-2009. The accounts involved then were Български360, 188.221.108.172, Admit-the-truth, 86.18.223.124, Muhammadproject. He was banned for 1 week for sock puppetry to enable edit warring. I think a longer ban is in order this time.Cathar11 (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow. You're right. The first comment by "mirroryou1" was supposed to be by the master account misconceptions2. Mirroryou hadn't ever been accused of anything, until today. Sort of makes checkuser unneccessary at this point. Hopefully, they'll get this down so we can 86 the lot shortly.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is so funny. the way your talking is like saying. "look at this stone its magical, then bali, the side kick comes along and says, it really is" just to sell it. i have been accused of sock puppetry by cathar11, in the article adminsrator notices/incidents. why dont u check it--Mirroryou1 (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So this is what happenned:

• • • Cathar11 in AN/I: Mirroryou1 is a sock of Misconceptions2
    • Misconceptions2 in AN/I: "i have been accused of this before" (he means in the previous SPI case a few weeks ago)
    • Mirroryou1 here: "I have been accused of sockpuppetry last time" (he means in the AN/I a few minutes ago) Sole Soul (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that he was still using sockpuppet IP User:86.18.223.124 to canvas support at RS noticeboard on 1 January 2010. As this account was used to edit an article he was creating on his user page it's definetely Misconceptions2's sockpuppet.Cathar11 (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:188.221.108.172 is another sockpuppet. Misconceptions2 is using it to override his block -- Raziman T V (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Piggybacking a neighbors connection from a wireless, and using another computer hooked up to own router. I don't know if CU has access to the routing information string, but that may be the only way to prove a sock in this case.DD2K (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have indeffed this user for further socking but a check-user to find any underlying accounts would be much appreciated. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the roomate of misconceptions2. i live in a flat, we live in 2 different rooms obviouslly. Anyhow, you blocked Misconceptions for an edit i made on the caravan raids. lol--Mirroryou1 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not gonna let misconceptions2 use my computer to log into his account, from this day on,ever again or the check user will claim we are the same person and i will get banned.i dont want to get banned from editing.please ban misconconception2 if you want. NOT ME PLEASE--Mirroryou1 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally i want to testify something. about a month ago misconceptions2 got banned from wiki (thats what he told me), i let him log onto my computer and he did something and GOT my ip address banned ! I will not let this happen again and am willing to testify against him.If he says that my account is his. He is lieing, I have let him on my computer many times and if he made edits on my ip adress. But from this day am not going to let him use my computer.

if the checkuser shows us as the same person it can not be trusted--Mirroryou1 (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for unblocking me. I am in the process of chaging my wirless interet WEP key. please, if another account gets made with my same ip, it is not me. I will report him if he makes another, becuase just a minute ago he got me banned--Mirroryou1 (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems to be obviously one person. If CU confirms that they have used the same computer and shared internet, it should be treated as socks. Since Mirroryou1 is continuing the battles that 'mirror' those of Misconceptions2, there should either be a indef block on all accounts(After CU, WP:Duck), or a topic ban for Mirroryou1. DD2K (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment. WE ARE NOT ONE PERSON. HE HAS DIFFERENT IP AND INTERET CONNECTION THAN ME. if u click on ip 188. it says that i use 02. also i only made one edit on that article, to get Bali's attention.

bali ultimate. you know that the ip 188.XX is my wirless internet ip.it is not misconception2's. And after this is over. Please get Misconceptios2 perma ban removed. Because he did not edit war after ban.he got perma ban for accusation that he edit warred after ban. but the person who edited the caravan raids article, was me,i told u this many times.I will forgive misconceptions2 for purposely trying to get me banned. !!--Mirroryou1 (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to copy-paste the same thing in so many places. -- Raziman T V (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not misconceptions2, sure i know him and let him use my computer of he needs to because am his friend. The only reason i edited the caravan raids article is to get Bali's atention, since it seems am banned from talking in his page.After this is over, i will try get him perma ban removed, and will edit the caravan raids article if i feel like it, and u better not accuse me of being a sock like u did the Gustak user. Also please tell that Gustak user to join in this discussion, i know his not misconceptions2--Mirroryou1 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gustaks ip

can somone identify his ip and submit it on wiki, and compare it with misconceptions ip. Since i know he is not misconceptions2 , and i dont want an innocent person to get banned--Mirroryou1 (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If misconceptions logged into his account on my computer. does that mean the checkuser will idetify him as me?--Mirroryou1 (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this essay.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests

{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.

Checkuser request – code letter: D (3RR using socks )

Current status – Awaiting initial clerk review.    Requested by Bali ultimate (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions