User talk:Mirroryou1

evidence

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I've already unblocked you, chummer!

Request handled by: Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 22:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Look at the bottom of his talk page.he only said it to get me banned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Misconceptions2

Look here. I testified against him. he only wants me banned because i told admins to ban him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Misconceptions2#Misconceptions2

This user sometimes uses my wirless connection, i gave him permission to. Please note (if he makes another account on my wirless connetion IP) it is not me. i will report him instantly. I testified against him that he uses my computer and internet because i use to let him. But i promise i wont let him ANYMORE!!!!

--Mirroryou1 (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly warning

You may know him IRL, but I heavily suggest you not use his first name when addressing him - that can be seen as outing him, and that is usually dealt with harshly. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 23:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relax

Hi,

I take it from you that you are not Misconceptions2 but his friend. But though you are not his sockpuppet, you are sort of acting like his meatpuppet. This might result in a bad impression about your friend. So stay back and relax. Try editing some other articles in the meantime. Let the sock investigation about him be over. After that, even if his block is not retracted, he could stay off for some time and request his unblock later. So start editing other stuff. Feel free to ask me for any help -- Raziman T V (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait for some time. Some decision about the sockpuppet investigation will come eventially. Cool down till then -- Raziman T V (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly how a checkuser works. But it is possible -- Raziman T V (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do - Checkuser works by analyzing the IP addresses under each account. Usually, if a CU rules "Likely" or "Confirmed", that means that the users, both behaviorally (i.e. barring CU evidence) and technically (with the IP data), are one and the same and/or so close in the technical aspect that it is plausible that the checked user is IP-hopping, usually within the same IP range or geographic locale. "Possible" means that the user shares a geographic/range location but differs in behavior, or that the behavior is similar, but the locale/range differs. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 00:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin you have the ability to check ip's, please compare my ip, with misconceptions2. to get this over with. i have also changed my wep key--Mirroryou1 (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admins do not have that ability, actually. Only Checkusers do, and they have to oblige by the Wikimedia Foundation's priv-pol. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 21:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser already found you and Misconceptions2 to be one and the same user. Go read the conclusion.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the ip 188 is my ip, not misconceptions. i am asking checkuser to verify this--Mirroryou1 (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a picture of my ip and computer.http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/1469/dsc00135k.jpg .i will upload misconceptions soon.--Mirroryou1 (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely

I have carefully considered the evidence linking you to Misconceptions2. We know that the other user has had access to your ip and that your very first edits were to support him at a discussion at an admin noticeboard. You both appear to be active around the same times of the day and there are periods where one account is active and another is not, and there are absolutely no incidences of posting at the same time. In your 2nd post you found ANI and on your 6th you were speaking confidentally about checkuser and ip addresses.

It is incontrovertable that you are either a sock or a meatpuppet and the policy at Wikipedia:MEAT#Meatpuppets is that "For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity."

At the very least you were clearly recruited to support Misconceptions2 in a discussion at ANI. At worse you are a sockpuppet although it is not clear which is which. You are not here to edit the encylopedia but to advocate for Misconceptions2. I am not able to tell conclusively if you are two or one so I am going to go ahead and treat you as one.

Finally, Misconceptions2 and you both emailed me at the same time with similar emails after they were blocked and one of Misconceptions2's email claimed that you were his sock. Joke? I couldn't care less either way, both of you have wasted enough of other editors' time.

Goodbye.. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:28, 5 January 2010 (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).

Mirroryou1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Spartaz, i swear on "my mums and families life" that me and misconceptions 2 are two different entities with 2 differennt computers. I also think you blocked xXGustakhxX wrongly, because even misconceptions told me that it is not him.Even check user said so!! he got caught up

Secondly , you said i was familiar with sockpuppetry. this is because my ip is 188.221.108.172 and i told you many times beffore, my ip address is very dynamic(do you know what that means). Everyone at my uni campus has access to it!!!! and this was banned before, and i stated this is the sock investigation.How could i not have known about socks, every time i went on wiki (back then i didnt have an account) a yellow message came up!

Thirdly, i wanted his perma banned removed because he is pis***g me off, he has gone crazy that he got banned since i ,made an edit on caravan raids while not logged in, u even said that the ip 188.XX is mine above? The reason i helped him is because he was desperate!!!!!!! I swear to God you have made some mistakes, i dont even know how i can convice you. we are not "people with the power" on wiki. oh well, i dont even use wiki that much...

one final point. What Razimantv is doing is censorship.Check what was on the page battle of waddan before he edited it.I dont want any admin to unban me other than Spartaz, other admins dont know whats going on

A PERMA BAN BASED ON SPECULATION IS UNJUST FOR ALL 3 USERS, i am asking u to reduce this kindly, please be symphathetic?, would you like to be banned based on speculation? innocent until proven guilty, no speculation please?

Decline reason:

Your concerns are noted. However, this block isn't based on guesswork. There is overlap in your contributions, where your early edits supported the other user. There is no overlap in your editing times, in that the other user edited only when you were logged out, and vice versa. This indicates someone logging in and out at the same workstation. Finally, there is an explicit claim in an e-mail sent to the blocking admin that you are a sockpuppet. Even if you are not a sockpuppet, your edits overlap with the other editor enough to consider you a meatpuppet, and - per the arbitration committee - meatpuppets may be considered one user for the purpose of santions such as this. The blocking admin chose to do so. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:41, 5 January 2010 (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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Mirroryou1 (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 sockpuppet, the user who said i am only lied to get me banned because i refused to help him, now i am helping him. see evidence above, right at the top. Secondly even if you accuse me of meat puppetry and agree that my ip is 188.XX. doesnt this mean that misconceptions2 did not edit "caravan raids " after ban, since his ip is 86.XX and was banned when his acccount got banned and could not have edit warred with it(please can an admin investigate this, he is my friend and he is very angry since he got banned for my edit with my ip at the university campus). he got perma ban for my edit, and i am asking a admin to remove this perma ban and change it to a 2 week ban before it was upped to perma,since i admitted already that i edited the article with my ip 188.XX after ban. the user gustak also got a perma ban,although the checkuser has said he is not related.please reduce this perma ban, i promise to behave and act how u want me to!!all this is being ignored, what should i do?i dont mind getting banned.just its not fair what i did to him.

i have nothing to do with those 2 users. The checkuser has said the SPI case was non conclusive. we might share the same interest, thats about it.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= i am not a sockpuppet, the user who said i am only lied to get me banned because i refused to help him, now i am helping him. see evidence above, right at the top. Secondly even if you accuse me of meat puppetry and agree that my ip is 188.XX. doesnt this mean that misconceptions2 did not edit "caravan raids " after ban, since his ip is 86.XX and was banned when his acccount got banned and could not have edit warred with it(please can an admin investigate this, he is my friend and he is very angry since he got banned for my edit with my ip at the university campus). he got perma ban for my edit, and i am asking a admin to remove this perma ban  and change it to a 2 week ban before it was upped to perma,since i admitted already that i edited the article with my ip 188.XX after ban. the user gustak also got a perma ban,although the checkuser has said he is not related.please reduce this perma ban, i promise to behave and act how u want me to!!all this is being ignored, what should i do?i dont mind getting banned.just its not fair what i did to him.


i have nothing to do with those 2 users. The checkuser has said the SPI case was non conclusive. we might share the same interest, thats about it. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= i am not a sockpuppet, the user who said i am only lied to get me banned because i refused to help him, now i am helping him. see evidence above, right at the top. Secondly even if you accuse me of meat puppetry and agree that my ip is 188.XX. doesnt this mean that misconceptions2 did not edit "caravan raids " after ban, since his ip is 86.XX and was banned when his acccount got banned and could not have edit warred with it(please can an admin investigate this, he is my friend and he is very angry since he got banned for my edit with my ip at the university campus). he got perma ban for my edit, and i am asking a admin to remove this perma ban  and change it to a 2 week ban before it was upped to perma,since i admitted already that i edited the article with my ip 188.XX after ban. the user gustak also got a perma ban,although the checkuser has said he is not related.please reduce this perma ban, i promise to behave and act how u want me to!!all this is being ignored, what should i do?i dont mind getting banned.just its not fair what i did to him.


i have nothing to do with those 2 users. The checkuser has said the SPI case was non conclusive. we might share the same interest, thats about it. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= i am not a sockpuppet, the user who said i am only lied to get me banned because i refused to help him, now i am helping him. see evidence above, right at the top. Secondly even if you accuse me of meat puppetry and agree that my ip is 188.XX. doesnt this mean that misconceptions2 did not edit "caravan raids " after ban, since his ip is 86.XX and was banned when his acccount got banned and could not have edit warred with it(please can an admin investigate this, he is my friend and he is very angry since he got banned for my edit with my ip at the university campus). he got perma ban for my edit, and i am asking a admin to remove this perma ban  and change it to a 2 week ban before it was upped to perma,since i admitted already that i edited the article with my ip 188.XX after ban. the user gustak also got a perma ban,although the checkuser has said he is not related.please reduce this perma ban, i promise to behave and act how u want me to!!all this is being ignored, what should i do?i dont mind getting banned.just its not fair what i did to him.


i have nothing to do with those 2 users. The checkuser has said the SPI case was non conclusive. we might share the same interest, thats about it. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

i dont like innocent ppl getting banned.How come you still not removed misconceptions perma ban even though check user had said we have two dif ip's (his is 86.XX).Also if you admit that the ip 188.XX is mine, doesnt that mean he(misconceptions) did not edit the article after ban. So his ban was unjust, since i was the one who edited it! The checkuser had said there are 2 dif ip address. Misconceptions could not have made edits after ban(when he was ban so was his ip,why dont you tell checkuser to verify) it was the ip 188.XX that edited. I will tell him to email you for an unban. A perma ban was unjustified, especially with no evidence that he edit warred after ban.I will take this to other admins if needed, because what you you said there is no 100% evidence, i read what u wrote on gustak users page, that there is "no hard evidence" but u still banned him, A PERMA BAN BASED IS UNJUST FOR ALL 3 USERS when there is no solid 100% evidene, i am asking u to reduce this kindly, please be symphathetic?, would you like to be banned based on speculation? innocent until proven guilty, no speculation please?

i have nothing to do with those 2 users. The checkuser has said the SPI case was non conclusive. we might share the same interest, thats about it. But i do not share the same interest as misconceptions2, i know what for a fact because he is my friend.

I was thinking that this is may be a case of meatpuppetry, but saying: "i dont mind getting banned.just its not fair what i did to him." made me think again. A sock doesn't care if only one of his accounts got blocked. May be you are 2 persons, but I'm not sure that he is not logging (or will log) in from your account as he did in the past. If he log from your computer we have nearly no way of knowing, because you both edit the same topics and have similar writing style. As to the reason why Misconceptions2 was blocked: even if the ip edits were yours, it is a meatpuppetry, and he is responsible for that. Because of Misconceptions2's past history of socking, the block was totally appropriate. Sole Soul (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"a sock dont care if 1 of his accounts dont get baned"? i am smart enough to know what would make me look suspicious and what would not. i said that "i dont care if i dont get banned" knowing this. i AM NOT STUPID.misconceptions2 got a perma ban, i want his perma ban to be removed because it is unjust, just as xxgustaks got banned,since i know he is not a sock. i dont use wiki that much, thats why i said it..but i will try get gustaks and misconception unbanned since they are innocent--Mirroryou1 (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]