User talk:In My Arms

November 2011[edit]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mirrored Love for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Itsbydesign (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alexandria (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to appeal my block as although I have operated two accounts I have never used them to inappropriately edit. I have never used them to prove a point or garner followers. In My Arms (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of at least six multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:40, 14 November 2011 (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'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).

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

Request reason:

After my IP address was blocked due to another user abusing various accounts. I felt the need to create two accounts in order to reestablish good faith when editing on my behalf. I decided to create two accounts for two separate subjects. The only accounts I have ever edited under are In My Arms and Trouble For Me. Believe me I am not an operator of any other account except these two. I also felt the need to create two accounts for security and privacy reasons as I sometimes use my account on a public wifi system. Please understand that I never have and never intend to use both accounts inappropriately. And once, unblocked, I intend to work both accounts with WP:Arbitration Committee to further ensure such accusations are not reoccurring. Please unblock Trouble For Me and In My Arms as I use these accounts appropriately. Please unblock my IP address as it is also used by multiple users. Thank You In My Arms (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In My Arms openly states they consider this a personal spat with Itsbydesign ( see below). While that is the case, I don't think they should be unblocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2011 (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.

Note to reviewing admin:

07:05 User:Mirrored Love edits User talk:Itsbydesign
07:12 User:On The Floor was created
07:13 User:In My Arms was created
07:14 User:Close My Eyes was created
07:18 User:Trouble For Me was created
07:24 User:Mirrored Love blanks Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mirrored Love

All this on the same IP, of course. I'm just saying. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm just saying User talk:Jpgordon my IP address is used by multiple users. And I personally have only ever operated 'In My Arms' and 'Trouble For Me' whislt never using them inappropriately. I can't believe I have had to look up all this rubbish after only recently registering my accounts! In My Arms (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for admin: In My Arms has made the same verbatim argument as Mirrored Love has here. Furthermore, the account was created on 11/7/2011 at 7:13. The first edit was on 11/14/2011 at 3:01, three days after Mirrored Love was blocked. Why create an account and have it be inactive for 7 days and have your first edit be in reference to the reason Mirrored Love was blocked?

As In My Arms stated, he/she felt the need to create multiple accounts to reestablish "good faith". This phrase admits guilt. There are thousands of Wiki users on a public or shared wifi and I do believe that none of them feel the need to create multiple accounts due to "privacy". That is why when you log out, there as message advising you to clear your cookies. It doesn't say create another account.

He/she is also asking for the account creation block to be lifted from the IP address. Looking at the contributions from 115.70.108.58, a majority of the edits are to Kylie Minogue articles (as were all of Mirrored Love's socks) so am I to assume that all the users of this IP share a love for Kylie Minogue? There is nothing coincidental about this situation. This account and the 5 others are all Mirrored Love Itsbydesign (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not True! I am only trying to edit a page. Mirrored Love was blocked due to using sock puppets, not because they were trying to edit something! I am also, unlike them, going about this ordeal in the right way. I have opened a section on the articles discussion page, rather than creating multiple accounts and engaging in sock puppetry. And you don't know what exact reasoning I have for creating multiple accounts for privacy; you are not me. And by web browser is set to clear cookies, just not when I use these accounts on a public network. Yes, a lot of the people using that IP address are Kylie Minogue fans. Still, Mirrored Love and the other love accounts are not of my doing! In My Arms (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Message For Itsbydesign[edit]

Why would you accuse me of sock puppetry for making a legitimate edit? Yes I have two accounts ‘In My Arms’ and ‘Trouble For Me’, one which is solely used for editing Kylie articles and the other used for Britney articles. I have never been associated with “Mirrored Love” and their sock-puppet accounts. Why accuse me of it? I mean clearly it’s a touchy issue with you, judging by your talk page. Warnings, bans, edit warring, licensing/copyright issues, blocks, orphaned images… the list just goes on and on! Yet you had the nerve to accuse me of sock puppetry not long after I join. I also find it strange how you were lurking about my talk pages in hope of finding a case.

I have never used my two accounts inappropriately! Yet you seem to have done a lot of damage with just one account. If you didn’t like any of my edits, why don’t you just use the talk/discussion pages to tell me why? Instead of blindly reverting an edit of mine and then reporting me as a sock puppet! It’s absurd to report me for giving myself a barn-star for testing purposes of which I deleted anyway! Yes, in case you didn’t notice, I am angry. Angry because just after I do something I have to suddenly read and research hundreds of pages just to bail myself out of something you created!

Do not create something out of nothing! I assume good faith, and I expect others to do the same. This whole ordeal has made me very sad and I do not want to go through it again. If you have a problem with my edits, discuss it on the articles discussion page. Do not just blatantly revert it for no constructive purpose. Discuss it so we can reach an agreement. I don’t want to fight; I just want to make sure I do my part by making articles on Wikipedia as correct as they can be. I do not want to spend my time writing mile long explanations like this again. In My Arms (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing personal about this situation. I do not know you and will never meet you. Regardless of how "angry" you become, your opinion does not affect me personally. What you are doing is abusing the rules of this site. A frivolous argument was created over "who's source is better" and you "magically" came along to reinforce Mirrored Love's opinion. As I pointed out above, your argument has the exact same tone and composition as Mirrored Love. Your edits are practically identical to Mirrored Love. Six other editors agree. Despite this grandiose production you've put on, you have yet to break the correlation between yourself and Mirrored Love. Yelling at myself and other editors is not helping your situation. Itsbydesign (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not at any given time reinforced Mirrored Love's opinion. I have my own opinion, we just share such a commonality. I used their source as an example as it saves me from uploading a picture and proving my own point. And it is personal. You are on a mission to prove you are right (when you are so definitely not) and are prepared to take down anyone in your path. By accusing me of sock puppetry just to prove a point is a bit much! I only edited like five flaming things! Digging up some random information about a user who is completely unrelated to myself as a person. I am not Mirrored Love or any other form of them - get this in your head! In My Arms (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi In My Arms. I've just declined your latest unblock request, because I think your seeing this as a personal attack suggests you are not yet ready to resume editing here - I'll leave the socking claims to others to evaluate with a longer term view on your block. Please note that the editing patterns highlighted do look *very* suspicious, and the way to counter them is not by counter-accusation. I would suggest you take a little while to try to reflect on this, and think about how best to word a new unblock request should you choose to go for one - and then leave it to an admin to weigh up the various arguments, rather than engage in personal attack and counter-attack -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I understand that it seems very suspicious, in fact I totally see why. But you must believe me, I am not Mirrored Love or any of the love accounts. Yes I know the person who is Mirrored Love and it's not me. And no it's not a case of meat puppetry (yes I know about these things as I've has to read plenty of pages on these issues in the past couple of days). I just share a common vision with them. You must understand - I am not Mirrored Love - I don't no how you can verify this without giving your personal identity away. It's also not meat puppetry as I am not a friend of Mirrored Love, just an associate, and they did not persuade me to join. I'm going to try my best to take these accusations professionally and not personally from now on. But honestly how long does it have to take - I only recently joined and I haven't been able to do a thing. In My Arms (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not judging the sockpuppet issue myself, I'm just saying that you really need to avoid seeing it as something personal between you and Itsbydesign and leave off the attacks on their motives - and if you don't, then I think you will be unlikely to be unblocked. I raised the suspicious nature of the events to suggest that Itsbydesign had legitimate reasons to be cautious, and is unlikely to be engaging in anything personal. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I see my wrong doing, I will not take it personally. Itsbydesign, I'm sorry that I took your allegations personally. I see I shouldn't have. I understand why you would suggest such a sock puppetry case as I have read both yours and Mirrored Love's talk pages. I also understand that you would think I was a sock puppet of the numerous love accounts as I have made an edit which you and them had clearly left unresolved. I completely see your view. I honestly was not here to cause trouble and do not intend to. I was making a genuine edit. The difference between Mirrored Love and I is that they resulted to edit warring and sock puppetry to prove their point. I however left my opinion open to discussion on the article's talk page. Could you please tell me your view on the subject, I truly want to hear your opinion (hence article discussion). I understand that you want third party reliable sources, but first party official sources are of course most correct. But feel free to enlighten me on your view so we can reach an agreement. I am doing my best to assume good faith, I will not take your allegations personally any longer. Thanks In My Arms (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting unblock as I am not a sock puppet of any other account, nor have I used my second account inappropriately. I have also agreed to not take these accusations personally and instead will peruse a professional attitude, allowing myself and others to edit to the best of our ability. I will also continue to appropriately deal with conflicts. I am understanding of the rules I must abide by. Please allow me to continue editing with both my 'In My Arms' account, and my 'Trouble For Me' account. I look forward to a positive outcome. Thank You In My Arms (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per Jpgordon's message below. While your story is theoretically possible (the actions listed in the "note to reviewing admin" could have been done from different computers, behind a router or orginization proxy which gives NAT service, possibly making each of you do it without knowing the other one is), I find it hard to believe. The chance that it would happen this way by coincidence from an otherwise inactive IP address is too low. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:27, 17 November 2011 (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.

I would like to see an explanation of how you created two accounts within a couple of minutes on the same IP and yet did not create the other accounts that were started on the same IP in exactly the same time frame -- the only new accounts that were created in months on that IP (other than another obvious Mirrored Love sockpuppet, User:Automatic Love). And these other accounts that you claim are unrelated have edited very little other than Kylie Minogue and Britney Spears related articles. There have been no edits from that IP outside of the area of contemporary popular music, almost all related to those two performers. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many people who use that IP, many are fans of Kylie Minogue and Britney Spears. There are also multiple computers running within the usage of that IP address and yes a few of the people created accounts at the same time as myself. One person created 'Close My Eyes' and another created 'On The Floor', the latter being totally inactive as the user has not been able to edit during the time that account was unblocked. 'Close My Eyes' has only really edited Mariah Carey articles anyway. So yes, I am aware that other accounts were created at the same time as 'Trouble For Me' and 'In My Arms', but I can assure you that none of those were Mirrored Love trying to create sock puppets. I created two, and two separate people created the other ones. Hence, I personally am not a sock puppet of any other account besides my two which I have always used appropriately. Hope that clears things up a little In My Arms (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Mirrored Love (ML for short) had created sockpuppets, I find it a strange coincidence that, in the range of months, the only accounts created from that IP address all edit in the same subject; that 4 of the 5 are created within a single 7 minute period, sandwhiched between 2 edits of ML which are within a range of 20 minutes; and that among these accounts, there is only 1 edit before ML was blocked, yet 3 of these accounrs edited after the block. It looks to me like the best way to explain this is that these 4 accounts are all sockpuppets of ML. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can they be sock puppets of ML when I know, and the other people operating their own accounts know, that they are themselves and not Mirrored Love. We are not the same people. And if there are edits between different users that is clearly because they were editing the same page. As I said, multiple users, multiple accounts, same IP address, that's one of the reasons why we all created accounts, so no confusion occurred. I am not a sock puppet of ML In My Arms (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting unblock as I am not a sock puppet of any other account, nor have I used my second account inappropriately. I have also agreed to not take these accusations personally and instead will peruse a professional attitude, allowing myself and others to edit to the best of our ability. I will also continue to appropriately deal with conflicts. I am understanding of the rules I must abide by. Please allow me to continue editing with both my 'In My Arms' account, and my 'Trouble For Me' account. I have also just honestly clarified why four accounts were created at the same time. I look forward to a positive outcome. Thank You

Decline reason:

I don't believe you. Talk page access revoked. Please direct any further appeals to the ban appeals subcommittee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. T. Canens (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2011 (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.