Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Misconceptions2/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Misconceptions2

Misconceptions2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date December 8 2009, 16:35 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by Notedgrant
[edit]

The IPs or users above add the same content on the article Muhammad and assassinations and others (Though the latest account may be a bit different but he is a sock and easily passes the duck test) They edit the same articles and try to show that a group of editors favor their POV.They have been adding copyright content to the article the IPs and users were blocked for it A new account User:Български360 surfaced whose first edit is quite similar to user:Misconceptions2s first edit He has been editing the same article too They maybe sock or meat puppets. user:Misconceptions2 is the same as the ip user:188.221.108.172 per this while the IP and users have a history swaying consensus per this afd where both the IPs and one of the users voted--NotedGrant Talk 16:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

This is not fair, i did not vandalise anything, i am not sock puppetry.

Also, I just added something here to defend myself and it was removed a minute ago.This is bullshit ( i bet i will get banned for this, but this really is bullshit, i add comments here, and it gets removed!!! no point)

NotedGrant just wants his point of view. i am not even criticisng islam, i added a NPOV and he deletes the reference

Also the reason i edited those pages is because it was advertise on faithfredom, to show people about islam.

Also Assassinations of Muhammad article had data + references removed by Noted Grant. he just wants his POV--Български360 (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FINALLY I WANT TO SAY THAT NOTED GRANT IS SUCH A BIG LIAR, I DID NOT MAKE ANY EDITS ON "MUHAMMAD AND ASSASSINATIONS", check the history, unless his reffering to the comment i left on the discussion page.

CommentThis is not WP:DR this is a serious case of sockpuppetry where a user after being blocked edits the same article for which he was repeatedly blocked (A case of wp:copyvio.Please do not add OR or unpublished synthesis of published material-NotedGrant Talk 17:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

I added User:Muhammadproject to the list of suspected sockpuppets because this "new" account began editing the same article(s) in the same fashion at exactly the same moment that Misconceptions2's unblock request was denied. Its very first edit is to revert NotedGrant without explanation, exactly where the blocked user left off. Conclusive? No. Persuasive? Yes. Doc Tropics 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Conclusions
[edit]

information Administrator note 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. MuZemike 17:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 2 2010, 15:16 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by Bali ultimate
[edit]

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   
[edit]

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]

Multiple users had suspected that you are a sock of Misconceptions2 based only on behavioral similarities. These users didn't know about a shared Internet connection before you said it. This is not an accident. Your defense would have been valid if the suspicion was first raised from a CU check. Sole Soul (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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 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]

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]

Gustakh here. I am not completely sure what's going on, but this isn't the sort of reception I expected when joining wiki.

Usually I just surf the pages and seldom participate as an actual editor here. I saw an article on "caravan raids" a few days ago, and when tried to access it yesterday, kept getting redirected to something entirely different. I tried many times and reloaded the page from the saved history but kept getting redirected to a different article. After half an hour's trying I thought I had lost my head and the article I assumed to have read didn't actually exist.

I had never even realized that there is a history tab on a wiki page before, but noticing it, I clicked and found out that some users were redirecting the page to a different article and what I had seen a few days ago wasn't my imagination. To correct the mistake, I created this account and undid their changes.

Next thing I know, I've been accused as a sockpuppet, which I am assuming means a proxy?

What I do want to ask, Bali in particular is, why are you redirecting a well written article to something completely irrelevant to the subject. The "Ghazwa" article does not cover all the caraban raids many of which were Saryas. You and Razmani are destroying many hours of work put in by previous editors by your blatant attempt at censorship. --XxGustakhxX (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, what razimantv and that other guy are doing is censorship! if i have time i will report this to admins with evidence!!--Mirroryou1 (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gustaks ip
[edit]

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]

are you trying to be funny? because i am not his brother, secondly can i ask why you have admit-the-truth as one of his sock puppets? it seems like it was a sock months ago?is it so if the others are not his socks and the check user says admit-the-truth is. You will then use that to ban him. Your just trying to remove everything from wikipedia you dont like, in my opinon and get rid of your enemies.--Mirroryou1 (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

This is XxGustakhxX. I would like to clarify that I am not a sockpuppet(whatever that is).

I read an article a couple of days ago on wiki, and tried to access it today, but kept getting redirected to a different article. Making some checks, I found out that a couple of users, Razmani and Bali have been editing the article redirecting the queries to a different unrelated topic.

I undid Razmani's last edit and now find that I've been charged for sockpuppeting, whatever.

I am more than willing to prove that I am an original user and this is my first account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxGustakhxX (talk • contribs) 18:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Misconceptions2, Mirroryou1 and XxGustakhxX have very similar writing styles, and that the latter two look like the first editor working quite hard to mask their inherent stylistic foibles and not quite succeeding. Check out, for instance, how all three fail to leave a space before an opening parantheses, or how all three often fail to use standard capitalization.[3] Small things, true, but perhaps tell-tale signs. To my eye and ear, the thinking behind all of these is quite similar. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hehe..and I would say, please get some treatment for your paranoia?

I've already stated that I am more than willing to prove I am not a sock puppet or whatever. I do not know who this misconception fella is either. The onus is on those who are saying that I am to give some concrete evidence.

As for IP check, please go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxGustakhxX (talk • contribs) 10:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok..I just received a message that I need to sign these comments. So yeah. --XxGustakhxX (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i am moving pics to the top, i had some time.this is my ip.188.xxx http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/1469/dsc00135k.jpg
Misconceptions2: http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/4400/dsc00136ut.jpg all this time i have been saying his Ip is 84.XX but it is actually 86.XX.XX.can a checkuser please fish out his ip and submit on wiki. and fish out my ip and submit it, to verify --Mirroryou1 (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please can u confirm the ip adress of misconceptions 2 is 86.XX or not, if not say so.also please confirm the wireless ip of ,me is 188.XXX if not ,say so.Jpdragon has said we use different browsers.This shows we use 2 dif browsers, we are not same person.misconceptions2 had acces to my wireless,not anymore.i changed wep key at uni campus--Mirroryou1 (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir/Ma'am,

I am not sure how to confirm IPs. I am new to wiki, and don't know how most of the functions work.

The moderators/admins can check my IP to confirm that I am no proxy.--XxGustakhxX (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: D (3RR using socks )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Bali ultimate (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
It's hardly necessary to actually run a checkuser at this point, but I did anyway, and of course it comes up  Confirmed for all but the XX one, just as we've been told it would. Sorting out exactly who is doing what and what should be done to whom isn't a checkuser issue at this point. --jpgordon::==( o ) 07:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Josh, I left a message on your talk asking if you could expand on how much crossover there is between the two ips and whether they were both editing different articles at the same time at any point. Spartaz Humbug! 14:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-CU noise removed. OK, here's the deal. There are indeed two IPs in question. One of them was used only by Misconception2 and Admit-the-truth, as well as quite heavily and possibly deceptively by the IP; most obviously deceptively at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justification of Terrorism in Islam by Admit-the-truth and the IP. Other articles such as Fasad show questionable interaction as well. The other IP has been used only by Misconceptions2, Mirroryou1, Muhammadproject, and one other username with no edits, User:KH360 (as well as by the IP itself). Misconceptions and Mirroryou do indeed seem to be using different browsers. Frankly, at this point, I don't find the checkuser results provide information any more helpful than what's been admitted; someone else can look at the precise editing patterns and timing. I'm making no recommendations at all. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much appreciated. I think we will need to do a thorough comparion of edits to work this one out. Spartaz Humbug! 19:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, regarding browsers, there's nothing in the world stopping anyone from using two browsers on one computer; I do it all the time, so the lack of identical browsers, just as the lack of identical IPs, doesn't prove anything; Checkuser only proves coincidence, and lack of coincidence proves nothing. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
[edit]

After analysis of the evidence I have blocked Mirroryou1 indefinitely as either a sockpupper of Misconceptions2 or a meatpuppet who is too closely linked to be easily distinguished as a separate entity. Thank you Josh for doing the extra checks and for your assistance with this case. Spartaz Humbug! 10:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.
04 September 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • Aside from the AfD, there are no articles which all of these accounts have edited, but several of them overlap with at least one other, generally in substance as well as location (eg. Misconceptions2 and 86.170.120.224 at Talk:Islam both focusing on whether or not "Islam" is derived from the same root as "salaam," Irvinga04 and 86.170.120.224 both removing "far-right" from English Defence League). 71.207.217.11 has made no edits apart from the AfD, but that's suspicious in and of itself; 24.62.162.28 has a couple of other edits which are problematic for different reasons, but is less likely than the others to be a sock of this particular user. (Note that MrSantaClaws's edit to The Farewell Sermon, linked above, also contains the same spelling error in the edit sum as Misconceptions2's, besides being the same.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
08 August 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Misconceptions2 appears to be either a sockpuppeteer, a meatpuppeteer, or both. Users 1 through 26 (group 1) are single purpose accounts that edit user pages in Misconceptions2's user space or in their own user space with the help of Misconceptions2. Users 27 through 34 (group 2) are also single purpose accounts that voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of attendance figures at anime conventions and/or Talk:List of attendance figures at anime conventions. There are two patterns characteristic to these puppets. Pattern A users edit almost entirely their own user pages and/or Misconception2 user pages. Pattern B start out with a few minor edits of articles (sometimes apparently randomly selected articles) and then their edits turn to single-purpose edits. Pattern A is most commonly used by those users that started editing from July 11 to July 20. Pattern B emerges from July 18 to August 3. Pattern B first appears in users 1 to 26 (group 1) and continues through users 27 to 34 (group 2). The continuity of Pattern B between groups helps establish the connection between the two groups.

Note for group 2, they all start editing from July 20 to July 23 in apparent anticipation of List of attendance figures at anime conventions nomination for deletion. The timing of the creation of these accounts fits perfectly with the discussion here [4] in which there is consensus that List of attendance figures at anime conventions should be nominated for deletion and misconceptions2 asks for at least 3 days to continue to work on issues with the list article on July 19. The list is nominated for AfD on July 31.

  1. User:Jurieshe23 begins editing on July 11 in the sandbox created for them by Misconceptions2 [5] and Jurieshe23 exclusively edits in their own sandbox. Misconceptions2 subsequently blanks their sandbox [6]. Pattern A
  2. User:Salembouzidi begins editing on July 11 on Misconceptions2's user page manga and Misconceptions2's user page "anime" [7]. These are the only pages Salembouzidi edits. Pattern A
  3. User:Raihaneng begins editing on July 12 in the sandbox created for them by Misconceptions2 [8]. Misconceptions2 subsequently blanks their sandbox [9]. Raiheneng only edits own sandbox and Misconceptions2's anime2012sandbox ‎ [10]. Pattern A
  4. User:Rajkamalsingh083 creates own user page "episodes" episodes on July 14 and Misconceptions2 immediately starts editing it here [11]. Rajkamalsingh083 only edits on own "episode" page [12]. Pattern A
  5. User:FFAGE2878 begins editing on July 14 by creating a user page episodes and Misconceptions2 begins editing it [13]. FFAGE2878 only edits their own "episode" page [14]. Misconceptions2 subsequently blanks their "episodes" page [15]. No Pattern
  6. User:Yasin666/anime is created on July 15 by Misconceptions2 with the contents of Jurieshe23's sandbox [16] and then blanks it [17] 10 minutes later. Yasin666 never edits [18].
  7. User:Eclatbs_13py creates a user page an an anime subpage on July 15 with the same content blanked from Yasin666 [19] and Misconceptions2 then blanks it [20]. Pattern A
  8. User:Alma3rifa begins editing on July 15 when Misconceptions2 creates a user page "baseem" for them with essentially the same content as for the previous users [21]. Misconceptions2 then creates a new list article List of attendance figures at anime conventions and then blanks the "baseem" subpage [22]. Alma3rifa only their user pages and Misconceptions2's [23]. Pattern A
  9. User:Vijilp begins editing on July 15 and creates an "anime" page, which is subsequently is blanked by Misconceptions2 [24] and beside their user page, this is the only page Vijilp edits [25]. Pattern A
  10. User:Ashique-Mahmud1991 begins editing on July 16 when Misconceptions2 creates a user page "table" for them with essentially the same content as for Eclatbs_13py [26]. Misconceptions2 subsequently blanks the table page [27]. Pattern A
  11. User:Shamim96 begins editing on July 18 with edits to Misconceptions2's user page "anime1998sandbox" [28] and this is the only page Shamim96 edits [29]. Pattern A
  12. User:Odesk.ramzan begins editing on July 18 and edits Misconceptions2's user page "anime2001sandbox" [30] and this is the only page this user edits [31]. Pattern A
  13. User:Shoma2 edits Misconceptions2's user page "anime2011sandbox" on July 19 [32] and this is the only edit Shoma2 makes [33]. Pattern A
  14. User:Amir.ishaqq makes their first edit July 19 and continues to make minor edits (creating on article stub) until they create User:Amir.ishaqq/harem‎ [34]. Misconceptions2 immediately begins editing this page[35]. Pattern B
  15. User:Ogosalo edits Misconceptions2's user page "anime" on July 20 [36] and this is the only page this user edits [37]. Pattern A
  16. User:Jafor rockman begins editing on July 21 and subsequently creates "sand" page with Anime convention attendance table [38]. They edit it exclusively on this page, which is also edited by Misconceptions2 [39]. It is then blanked by Jafor rockman [40]. The contents is pasted by Misconceptions2 into List of attendance figures at anime conventions [41]. Pattern A
  17. User:Awais 47 makes their first edit on July 21 and continues making minor edits until they start editing User:Misconceptions2/ecchi [42]. Pattern B
  18. User:Josepaulopineda begins editing on July 22, makes a few minor edits [43], then creates and edits the user page "Jose", which Misconceptions2 also edits [44] and they edits Misconceptions2 "episode" page [45]. Pattern B
  19. User:Baki03 makes their first edit on July 28 and continues making minor edits to random articles until the begin editing User:Misconceptions2/harem [46]. Pattern B
  20. User:Johnmorales777 makes their first edit on July 28 and continues making minor edits until they start editing User:Amir.ishaqq/harem [47]. Pattern B
  21. User:Natashanayak begins editing on July 29 and made minor edits before editing Misconceptions2's "manga" page [48]. Pattern B.
  22. User:Mr.neel makes their first edit on August 1 and continues making minor edits until they start editing User:Misconceptions2/romance [49]. Pattern B
  23. User:Article contribute makes their first edit on August 1 and continues making minor edits until they start editing User:Misconceptions2/comedy [50]. Pattern B
  24. User:Arfani100 makes their first edit on August 1 and continues making minor edits until they start editing User:Misconceptions2/action [51]. Pattern B
  25. User:Marie013 makes their first edit on August 1 and continues making minor edits until they start editing User:Misconceptions2/sports [52]. Pattern B
  26. User:Hajra Bostan makes their first edit on August 3 to their user page and continues making edits to user page until they start editing User:Misconceptions2/drama [53]. Pattern A
  27. User:Arifulbk makes first edit on July 20 and continues to edit own user page and minor edits to a couple of other articles. The then vote delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Football League All Stars Football (Philippines), 6 minutes later vote Keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of attendance figures at anime conventions, and 5 minutes later votes Keep at Talk:List of attendance figures at anime conventions [54]. Follows a combination of Patterns A and B.
  28. User:Gokul.gk7 makes their first edit on July 20 and continues making minor edits until they vote Keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of attendance figures at anime conventions [55]. Pattern B
  29. User:Lonelydream makes their first edit on July 20 and continues making minor edits until they vote Strong keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of attendance figures at anime conventions and also Strong keep at Talk:List of attendance figures at anime conventions [56]. Pattern B
  30. User:Bmshafiul makes their first edit on July 21 and continues making minor edits until they vote KEEP at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of attendance figures at anime conventions [57]. Pattern B
  31. User:Junellene.sapinoso makes their first edit on July 21 and continues making minor edits until they vote Keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of attendance figures at anime conventions and also comment at Talk:List of attendance figures at anime conventions [58]. Pattern B
  32. User:Bnseagreen makes their first edit on July 22 and continues making minor edits until they vote Keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of attendance figures at anime conventions [59]. Pattern B
  33. User:Acmel48 makes their first edit on July 23 and continues making minor edits until they vote Keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of attendance figures at anime conventions and also Keep at Talk:List of attendance figures at anime conventions [60]. Pattern B
  34. User:Kenjots makes their first edit on July 23 and continues making minor edits until they vote Keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of attendance figures at anime conventions and also Keep at Talk:List of attendance figures at anime conventions [61]. Pattern B I am One of Many (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Users 27 through 31 (as of today) have not edited since July 31 and users 32 through 34 have not edited since August 5th. That these users edit with such a high degree of synchrony is astronomically improbable by chance.--I am One of Many (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

35. User:Mohsinmallik, added by Juhachi, appears at the very least to be a WP:MEAT puppet. The first edit was in May 2011 [62] and there was no activity for over 2 years until July 20 when a few minor edits occurred before voting to keep here [63] and here [64]. Then, no activity from August 4 to August 11 until they vote to keep here [65]. I did not include them in the first listing because the account was created 2 years earlier, but the editing behavior after the first edit perfectly fits the behavior of group 2.I am One of Many (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
36. User:Priti.shetty makes their first edit on August 5 and continues making minor edits until August 8, and then they vote Keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of attendance figures at anime conventions (2nd nomination) five days later. Pattern B
37. User:Akosicristina First edit July 21, last edit August 7. The suspicious point being the last edit, it's summary being restored prices due to clear consensus on talk page however Akosicristina never participated the discussion. How weird.Pattern B
38. User:Kamil Hussain Edits once on August 1 and then edits User:Misconceptions2/comedy2 exclusively [66]. Pattern A (User will be notified)
Comments by other users
[edit]
Hatting extended commentary and attacks

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet
  • Please get this over with quickly and do the check user so I can be cleared of these falsified and exaggerated accusations
  • As for those people who edited my userpages and those peoples whose user pages I have edited. I admit I know them. They have worked with me to improve drafts on userpages. I am aware of meat puppetry and these people who worked with me to improve article drafts on userpages I could have told them to help me and vote on the List of attendance figures at anime conventions afd page. but i never told a single one to do that because that would be canvassing and not a single one voted on that articles Afd. There was also some off wiki coordination which took place on google chat. As you can see on my userpage it says: "If you would like my google chat or skype id, please email me", this has been there for 1 year and I have coordinated with the people who have been in my contact list from ages ago--Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for those who voted keep. I do not know them and never interacted with them on userprages or talk pages, you can see their contribution history. There is no evidence that i told any of those people who voted keep to vote keep . Some who voted keep on afd were admins. I only know those who edited my userpage or those whose user pages i edited
  • This does not appear to be accurate. Arifulbk starts editing on July 20 and then creates sandbox on July 21 [67] with "Manga artists" and then blanks the sandbox 10 minutes later [68]. About three hours later, Salembouzidi pastes this list into Misconceptions2/manga [69]. Arifulbk does not edit for 10 day until they vote here on July 31 [70]. This is similar to the group 1 meatpuppets, you admit to. So, it appears that group 2 are your meat/sock puppets as well.
They are not meat puppets, they have never ever posted articles for me or voted on my behalf or edited because I asked them to, they were willing to help me. They are independent of me. They worked together with me to improve drafts on userpages, I also helped improve drafts on their userpages. I also do not know Ariful and never edited his userpage and he never edited mine, he may have worked together with Salem.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been banned in the past for sock puppetry and the 2+ years since then i have never used socks. On 04 Sep 2011 (the last time I was accused of sock puppetry) I was cleared of sock puppetry: here --Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This SPI along with the checkuser really needs to happen. While the 2011 case was a false alarm, the two previous cases were confirmed along with the fact - and I think someone else mentioned this - that Misconceptions2 was still using their sockpuppet accounts to lie and deny their sockpuppetry to the bitter end. Perhaps this is also a false alarm in which case there won't be any risks for running the check anyway, but the requester has really laid out very clear, detailed evidence that absolutely seems to warrant a check. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly am not a sock of Misconceptions2. I want this to be verified asap . This is quite unfair and I think it is Bad Faith for "I am One of Many" to accuse so many this easily.--Gokul.gk7 (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been hired by Misconceptions2 through an "agent" in oDesk. He then tasked me to do the edits for him [[71]] and said I will be paid thereafter. However, he was unresponsive after I completed the table and I was not paid for the job. I see he was advertising another "wikipedia job for $250". I have no idea of his purpose for the edits as I accepted the "job".Marie013 (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He first asked me to complete at least 50 random / minor edits, cautioning me not to edit popular articles as this would cause for my account to be blocked. Then he asked me to complete this table [[72]]. After not hearing from him in Skype, I can see he has posted status as "need someone with wiki account opened at least 2 months ago" Marie013 (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am willing to submit my Skype conversations with him and help in any investigation matters involving this user. Marie013 (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This person Marie013 is a fraud. I have been working together with misconeptions2 to help him create new wikipedia articles and used his user page as sandbox for drafts and he also used mine, I never accepted any payments for this, since I wanted to also create some anime articles. The agent that person (Marie013) is referring to is me, but it is not as it seems. I told this person to work on Misconceptions2's user page. Misconceptions2 has nothing to do with it. But After I refused to pay her for money I apparently owe her, she started to blackmail me, she even stated that "il see to it he (Misconceptions2) gets banned" if I do not pay her. She has since deleted me on skype and was insinuating that I will not get any sleep over this until I pay up. Misconception2 has almost nothing to do with her. Do not trust a word she says, she is just trying to get Misconceptions2 banned as revenge because she was not able to extort money from me.--Josepaulopineda (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I spoke to Marie013 via IRC, and I pointed her towards this SPI of which she apparently was not aware. Huon (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time Josepaulopineda has edited in 3 weeks and it happens an hour after Marie013 maker her report. Misconceptions2 was editing during the same time that Marie013 was making her report. It appears that Josepaulopineda attempt to take the blame is a desperate attempt by Misconceptions2 to get off the hook. I am One of Many (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have talked to Josepaulopineda, he showed me screenshot proof that Marie013 did say "il see to it he gets banned. :)" to Josepaulopineda via skype (including a malicious smily face, lol). You should ask her yourself on IRC whether she did or did not say that about someone who she doesn't even know. I have never ever talked with Marie013 before. All my interactions with her were through Jose. This is only way I know her, and I certainly did not promise anyone money in exchange for editing my userpage and no one ever paid me for editing their userpage draft. Whatever Jose did or did not promised her is none of my business. Since it was my userpage she was editing, she probably thinks I am responsible for her problems --Misconceptions2 (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • IP (103.15.165.42) Deletes contents of User:Misconceptions2/romance and states in the edit summary "making default page cause of no payment deal".I am One of Many (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made that article and blanked it. I am in the same boat as some of the other users. I was also messaged by Jose to help by Jose and happily agreed to contribute and work together to improve wikipedia by making anime articles for free as part of a group calloboration. But I was finding out that it was taking up too much of my time. I asked Josepaulopineda to pay me if he wants me to continue to help him, although initially I agreed to help for free I had a job I was busy with and wiki was getting in the way. So I couldnt give this hobby of mine anymore time. He refused to pay me. So I refused to work and blanked the page, I had to put my job first, thats why I wrote: ""making default page cause of no payment deal". I hope it didn't give you the wrong idea. I think Marie is in same boat as me, she probably also wanted some money after all the free work we were doing.--NeeL (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all I don't know Misconceptions2 that well. I was contacted by Josepaulopineda on skype and was asked by him to help make articles about Manga and Anime on wikipedia. I agreed to this as I am a huge anime enthusiast. I also told some of my friends if they would be interested in helping such as "Article contribute". I was never offered any money for this. Though it would be nice if I was. Josepaulopineda told me that Misconceptions2 and some other people are also creating anime articles, I was told if I need any help I should ask him or Misconceptions2. Josepaulopineda told me he also contacted Marie013, however I dont know this person and I am not the sock puppet of any of those accounts. Josepaulopineda can better explain this spider web, he probably has links to a lot of those accounts who have been creating anime articles. Me and Jose have only worked with people who made anime related aarticles. Those people who edited other articles and voted on articles have nothing to do with me or Jose --Johnmorales777 (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spoke to Huon and he told me to comment here. (1) I don't really know him. (2) I know this user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Josepaulopineda (3) Pineda contacted me on skype and told me to edit the userpage and told me to help make anime articles. Just like the above user I was willing to do this because I was very interested in the subject, I also wasn't paid anything. I doubt Pinenda offered money to anyone. This was a collaboration. I was told be Huon Calibrations are allowed on wikipedia. So why should be and Pineda be banned, we didnt do anything disallowed. Huon said to me that it seems like that Pineda "tried to fabricate a consensus to keep an article that should have been deleted". He is referring to the article I helped create. But Pinenda never asked me or anyone I know to vote on that article and I have never voted. So this has got nothing do to with me
Comment: User:Salembouzidi You have one major problem with your story. Your account was created on July 11[74] and User:Josepaulopineda's account was created on July 21 [75]. So, the user's account who contacted you didn't exist until 10 days after you created your account and started editing Misconceptions2's user pages on July 11?--I am One of Many (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what, these 2 users know each other through skype. It doesn't matter if there accounts are made at different times. You so easily accepted Marie013's false allegations about me, when she is trying to get me banned for no good reason other than because she has a grudge against Jose. But you try to find holes in this comment. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The point is that Marie013's account makes sense. Putting together these huge tables with sources is a lot of work and it looks boring. How you could get people to do these monotonous tasks on tables in your user space (not articles in Wikipedia) for free is a bit hard to swallow. She made 50 random edits as she was told to do in article space. If she was just volunteering to work on your anime projects and was an enthusiast as some of the others have claimed, why didn't she edit anime related articles in those 50 edits? Why didn't any of the others who edited articles in article space edit anime related articles? There is not even one that I can find among all the accounts above. The bottom line is her story passes the credibility test.I am One of Many (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in anime--at all. And surely it wasn't voluntary work for my part. He showed me how to fill up those tables through Teamviewer. He made the first two entries of the table as Misconceptions2. Promised to pay me $100 if I complete it all within 10 days and $25 bonus if completed within 5 days. After I completed it, he had a series of excuses for me like he was very busy and that he was hospitalized. That's what made me seek help because I wanted to delete the tables I made. Searching through wiki rules, I learned that my contributions are public. So then I tried to seek help through IRC and met Huon and he directed me to this SPI. PS. I have never ever met Josepaulopineda in Skype nor anywhere else. Marie013 (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marie013. You are either a liar or your just confused, heres why:
(1*)First you said you were offered $250 and that another $250 job was offered to you, now you say you were offered $100. Why did you change your story?
(2*) You said you have no interest in anime AT ALL. I have evidence that you are based on your userpages on othersites.
(3*) You have not even said where all these jobs were offered/advertised either. You could at least give a link so easily if you were telling truth
(4*)You told jose: "il see to it he gets banned. :)" this is the skype log Jose provided: Jose said "Why did you say those things about the Misconceptions2 user? If my friends account gets banned for what you said i wont even check the work". Then later you said: "okay then. have a good sleep if you can. " and "il see to it he gets banned. :)", did you or did you not say "il see to it he gets banned. :)", why would you say "he" and not "you" if you think the person you were talking to was misconcenptions2, you should of said "il see to it you get banned. :)". Please explain this?
(5*) Clearly you acknowledged that there are 2 people through the use of "you" and "he", you said you don't know Jose. If you claim to not know jose and claim you know me, then tell me who is other person?
P.S I edited the first 2 rows on your user page on Joses request to help you understand how to do it , after I did that he messaged you on skype and said "I did the first one for you", although it would have been better if he said ""Misconception2 did the first one for you", but he preferred to keep his words simple. I also did this for many others Users like Salembouzidi and Mr. Neel see here . However that does not mean I am the one who told them to edit my userpage. Just because it was my userpage you edited and because I made first 2 edits, do not assume it was me who told you to make those edits and who talked to you on skype--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

extra) I just realised something, after checking Jose's skype chat log, I see that you did not even ONCE ask him his name. Putting aside the fact that you said "il see to it he gets banned.", where HE=Misconception2. which indicates that you know it was NOT me you were talking to on skype. Under such circumstances you can NOT be so sure you were not talking to someone called Jose when you say " I have never ever met Josepaulopineda in Skype nor anywhere else." --Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm confused. If you = Misconceptions2 are checking Jose's skype chat log, is Jose and Misconceptions2 the same person? If not, how can you check Jose's skype chat logs with other people? I am One of Many (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my previous comment. I said before Jose sent me screenshot proof and also provided the skype log to me. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this some sick Joke? How can this investigation not be over even now... after almost 1 month ! I already stated in the AFD. I aint NO SOCKPUPPET !!!--Acmel48 (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything is in the Skype chat log that I have. Don't worry, I will submit it all for investigations and any other documents needed, even if it includes contacting my ISP if possible. Original ones--not like the ″screenshots″ that you claim to have. And as for those links you provided, it is my first time to see those links. This is the only account I have with Marie013 as username. Anyway, we can simply wait for the CheckUser investigations. I have a clear mind and conscience that I am telling the truth.Marie013 (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Marie user isnt being honest. I have seen some video evidence that Jose showed me that will make it clear she is lying. He will upload it soon--Johnmorales777 (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Misconceptions2 , dont waste your time with that fraudster. She can be deceptive and deny what she wants. But here is undeiable video proof of what Marie said: http://www.sendspace.com/file/p7cqyc It shows she is trying to get you banned on purpose and shows she knows the person she was talking to was NOT misconceptions2. Ban her from wikipedia for decieving everytone thus far.--Josepaulopineda (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Were you planning on inviting Misconceptions to comment here? Spartaz Humbug! 20:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that Misconceptions2 would get a notification, but I'll place a notification on their talk page.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - I'm endorsing this for the very least on editors 27 - 34 in the numbered list, as users who all registered at around the same time and piled on to an AFD together. The rest of the evidence is pretty concerning, and perhaps a CU against the rest of the accounts is warranted as well. Misconceptions2 has been caught socking in the past, which he also vigorously denied until blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: Comments like "This really needs to happen soon", no matter whether they're coming from the accused or people with some other interest in the case, are completely useless. I am trying to get this done but sometimes there are delays. So please refrain from making comments like that, as you're just wasting everyone's time by doing so. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6 days is not enough? When do you admins plan on taking a look at this? Seems like yo could care less--Sinjanthu (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes no. You probably have no idea the degree of due diligence that checkusers go through in complicated cases and its better to get the answer right rather then do it badly quickly. Spartaz Humbug! 20:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All that is unintentional as some of the users know each other personally off site through skype or google chat. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
23 October 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Master created the List of notable 3D printed weapons and parts in September and added a 'See also' link to many articles such as this. They were removed and he complained about link removal on Andy Dingley's talk page. Subsequently, the sock appeared almost exclusively to restore the same link. Given his socking history and several indefinite blocks from which he has been unblocked, I intend to indef block the master and sock and hardblock the IP (pulled from archive and showing active) for more than one year. Requesting CU to confirm and run sleeper check.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sockmaster here is Nafsadh: a student with overlapping interests whose editing increases in volume from the start of term - 7th October, the same date his many (seriously, I'm impressed here) socks all spring back into life. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What! Come on. First, I do not even like anonymity. I often had feud over edits with M2; though I have not been involved in Islam related articles for more than a while, where I met M2. I spend more time in Bangladesh related articles. – nafSadh did say 20:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • Comment If we look at the case just prior to this one (about a year ago), the accounts were unrelated but claims were made by at least one of the accounts that they were paid to do the editing. So, I think what we are looking at is WP:MEAT in which, as before, individuals may be paid for their editing. I thought that after the last incident that this behavior might end, but apparently it never will without some type of action. The conclusion drawn last time was that paid meat puppetry is not a violation of sockpuppetry policy. However, this behavior has now occurred repeatedly over a number of years, so may be it best falls under long-term disruption and therefore WP:NOTHERE.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
THis is BS. If Gomu gomu is banned then i should be banned on same grounds because i also edited similiar articles to Misconceptions2 and I also like anime, and believe it or not, i like choclate, and ice cream, to. Oh, i also drink water. Does that make me a meat of Miconceptions2 as well?--Calcula2 (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my response to that question elsewhere.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This block is harsh. I was also accused of being a sock of M2 about a year ago. I know him off wiki. I enjoy editing wikipedia anonymously and with my accoutn every now and then. If you know someone off wiki should be be considered meat puppetry.--Priti.shetty (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You edited briefly a year ago, then nothing since until October this year (to remove an M2 sockpuppet note), when you re-appeared on the same day as Gomu. Please. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The block looks rather hasty, based on only one admin's suspicion and investigation was inconclusive and it is rather unlikely that M2 mastered sock. Furthermore, suspicion, investigation, judgement and ruling all are done by only ONE person!, who also ignored other users' input. – nafSadh did say 19:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What! This is ridiculous! Andy Dingley just reported me as master of socks! Cannot I even give my opinion on an investigation? – nafSadh did say 20:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, 'Master of Socks'. I'll grant you that much. This was artistry.
WP:PACT
Andy Dingley (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get it. Anyway, why do you think I would run one or more socks? I do not even like to use a different nick than my real identity. I found why M2's talk is in my watchlist, I put a tb on his talk. – nafSadh did say 21:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • The technical results with regard to Gomu gomu no pistol are  Inconclusive, bordering  Unlikely. This could be WP:MEAT or maybe someone unrelated pissed at Andy Dingley and targeting his edits, but CU isn't helpful determining a connection in this case.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeffing meatpuppet and blocking master and IP for one month. I believe the interest in anime by the puppet on their talk page combined with weapons more closely aligns this user to Misconceptions2's posse rather than Andy's detractors. I've blocked more conservatively than originally planned to let Misconceptions2 know that he is on very thin ice and had better stop with the shenanigans. I'll leave it for another clerk to close.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: I've sent some information to func-l that may be of some assistance. Mike V • Talk 21:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't believe that Nafsadh is related to this case. All the other accounts have been blocked and the unblock requests have been denied, so I believe the evidence I sent to help link the other accounts may be moot at this point. I'm closing the case as it seems everything that can be done has been completed. Mike V • Talk 17:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Misconceptions2/Archive&oldid=1138675440"