Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TrEeMaNsHoE/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


TrEeMaNsHoE

TrEeMaNsHoE (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date October 27 2009, 01:36 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Ericorbit
[edit]

User:TrEeMaNsHoE, long history of dodgy edits, including a past block, edits almost exclusively articles related to singer Ciara. Recently Ciara discography underwent a large overhaul which blatantly places a large amount of unsourced information into it (among other mistakes), most of it done by the IP address: [1]. My removal of unsourced material was reverted several times by TrEeMaNsHoE, and Talk Page communication was ignored. Conveniently the article was then immediately reverted by the IP address to TrEeMaNsHoE's version [2]. A message on my Talk Page by TrEeMaNsHoE also claims the edits were a joint effort with User:Lil-unique1, who, by looking at the article's history, was not involved in TrEeMaNsHoE's version and has in fact placed previous warnings on both user's talk pages. I'm requesting checkuser here and, if confirmed, the necessary sockpuppet steps to be taken. Thanks for your time. - eo (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]
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 eo (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Conclusions
[edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date November 20 2009, 02:52 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Explicit
[edit]

These three accounts quack TrEeMaNsHoE. Both removed content content from TrEeMaNsHoE talk page and seem to be using this content. PlantDeskBook moved this content to their userpage, while FiGlEaFbOoK and KeyRightMouse are both editing articles related to Ciara, as TrEeMaNsHoE had. Coincidentally, all three accounts were made November 19, 2009. I'm requesting Checkuser to find any other socks and blocking a possible underlying IP. — ξxplicit 02:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]
CheckUser requests
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by — ξxplicit 02:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Conclusions
[edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Per checkuser. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Report date November 28 2009, 21:30 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Explicit
[edit]

Continued socking at Ciara discography (just look through the history). Follows typical username follows the convention of random items (compare to blocked socks ComputerBasketball (talk · contribs), ReadBedHouse (talk · contribs), PlantDeskBook (talk · contribs) and KeyRightMouse (talk · contribs)). Latest sock (ReadBedHouse) was created on November 24 and blocked on November 25, while PlannerPenBackpack was also created November 24, which makes me suspect there are sleepers around, which is why I'm requesting checkuser. If I could get status on the IP(s), it's worth knowing if this abuse could be potentiality long-term. — ξxplicit 21:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Hi, I am here to try to make my case that those accustions while not false do not directly make me a sockpupet of treemanshoe. I haven't done the littlest thing wrong. I am actually trying to improve Ciara pages and other artists, which is contrary to what treemanshoe was doing when he was editing. I have remained unbiased throughout. I simply started the other day. The reason my username has random items, is because my wanted username kept being denied saying it wasn't special , so i then combined three random objects. None of the evidence makes me look like treemanshoe, all of these are similarites. If you observe my edits, as to exactly waht i do you will see that I am not like the person you accouse me of sockpuppeting. I respect any decision you make. Thank you for listening. Also, if you look at my edits, you will see I have followed all guidelines.--PlannerPenBackpack (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]
CheckUser requests
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by — ξxplicit 21:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

 Confirmed.  IP blocked. J.delanoygabsadds 00:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions
[edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date December 30 2009, 23:21 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Explicit
[edit]

I'm not entirely sure if this is TrEeMaNsHoE reincarnated as this username doesn't follow the usual pattern of random object, but the editing pattern is highly suspicious to me. They happen to edit the same articles TrEeMaNsHoE has with his past socks, like Jeremih, Ciara, Ciara discography and Ciara-related topics, Drake discography [3], Keri Hilson discography [4], 50 Cent discography [5], etc. The overlapping interests like this is far too similar to ignore, which is why I'm requesting checkuser. That, along with the fact that they never seem to use the preview button and make several edits in succession makes it seem that this is TrEeMaNsHoE . — ξxplicit 23:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]
CheckUser requests
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by — ξxplicit 23:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk declined per clear behavioral evidence (see WP:DUCK). No CU necessary. –MuZemike 17:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Sockmaster's talk page access revoked again. –MuZemike 17:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 20 2010, 12:56 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Ericorbit
[edit]

Yet another suspected sock of User:TrEeMaNsHoE, this based on editing evidence. Most recent sock User:OnTopOfTheGame was confirmed/banned on April 15 and new account User:Aspirin-c began editing April 16. All the same articles and interests. Thanks in advance. - eo (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]

Hmm, this one is a bit tricky. An IP, 68.248.73.190 (talk) (who is quite clearly TrEeMaNsHoE, based on the IP range), has contacted Aspirin-c on their talk page. I've seen TrEeMaNsHoE contact other users with previous socks, but I don't think he has contacted himself to make it appear is if he weren't the owner of a sock account. Additionally, I don't think he's ever edited articles related to television, as Aspirin-c has done in Desperate Housewives (season 6) and We All Deserve to Die. Aspirin-c also removed content from Jennifer Lopez citing WP:CRYSTAL here and here, a policy TrEeMaNsHoE never abides by. I agree that this account is a bit fishy, but TrEeMaNsHoE weeds out his own socks for me, and this one just doesn't fit. — ξxplicit 02:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, although I know that TrEeMaNsHoE has used the Talk Pages of his socks in the past, either with fake stuff or even as a kind of sandbox before dumping a large edit into a Ciara article. And I agree, this account definitely makes alarms go off for me, but if it is not TrEeMaNsHoE, a checkuser would surely alert us to any accounts/socks being used by this person? - eo (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by eo (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Endorsed by a checkuser. A checkuser investigation is warranted, per Explicit. --Deskana (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aspirin-c (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) belongs to Group 1 - United Arab Emirates listed here, so it seems that Aspirin is Brexx and not TrEeMaNsHoE. Thanks for listing the last confirmed sock of the suspected sockmaster, by the way; that was extremely useful. --Deskana (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've placed a block and reverted recent edits. - eo (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date April 22 2010, 21:07 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Lil-unique1
[edit]

This is typical editing style and habits of the accused User:TrEeMaNsHoE who has engaged in similar edits in the past. He/she has asked me to edit Ciara's disography which is exactly what TrEeMaNsHoE has done in the past. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]

This is undeniably TrEeMaNsHoE. Again, based on the IP range and behavioral evidence, just like the recent 68.79.96.156 (talk) and 68.79.100.158 (talk), as well as the ancient 68.79.92.155 (talk). The IP range is far too wide to even consider blocking for an extended period of time. — ξxplicit 22:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

no Declined. It is typically bad form for a checkuser to reveal whether an account is related to an IP address. --Deskana (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted under user-reported cases for admin attention. SpitfireTally-ho! 22:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note IP blocked (AO) 3 days. –MuZemike 22:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
19 May 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]

to cut a long story short following the removal of unsourced information Bangin' beats re-added the information with bad sources and no edit summary. Classic traits of longterm sock master TrEeMaNsHoE. Administrator User:Explicit endorses checkuser as this case is complicated and could be linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CiaraFan4Ever. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence submitted by Lil-unique1
[edit]
Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed Tim Song (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed

 IP blocked J.delanoygabsadds 18:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both blocked and tagged. Thank you, J.delanoy. — ξxplicit 18:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
23 August 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by Explicit
[edit]

After being range blocked for three months, it seems good old TrEeMaNsHoE is back in business. The recently created Drake&Ciara Fan (talk · contribs) shows typical editing style and shares the same interests, like Ciara, Drake (entertainer) and their knowledge with discographies. In fact, similar edit summaries are being used: "sweat it out never charted on bubbling under hot 100" by CU confirmed sockpuppet Bangin' beats (talk · contribs) some months ago, and the Drake&Ciara Fan " sweat it out didnt chart on the bubbling under hot 100" just recently. I'm requesting CheckUser to confirm this sock, search for sleepers and perhaps get another, lengthier range block. — ξxplicit 22:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! As soon as this editor came around, it looked extremely familiar to me, I submitted a checkuser request thinking it was a sock of User:CiaraFan4Ever. This user's immediate knowledge of WP policies and his edit summaries, etc. screamed WP:DUCK to me. Regardless, both CiaraFan4Ever and TrEeMaNsHoE are major nuisances, so if this does check out, I would recommend an immediate, longer range block. - eo (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

 Clerk declined – I got the rangeblock (6 months this time, AO); let's see how this plays out. –MuZemike 00:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

16 September 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Explicit
[edit]

Well... it appears that the recent six month range block didn't work out so well. This account was created three days after the block of Drake&Ciara Fan (talk · contribs). Da2aTuth uploaded an image over at Commons, the same image which was uploaded and deleted here. If I'm not mistaken, they're even using the same Flickr source. Anywho, the latter was uploaded by Everyyearisciaras (talk · contribs), who was also blocked as suspected sock of TrEeMaMsHoE on both here and Commons. The listed IP happens to be within the same range as the first IP listed in the first case, so I'm guessing we're dealing with two separate ranges or one extremely wide range. I'm requesting CheckUser to hopefully find a better range block here. — ξxplicit 21:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

 Confirmed –MuZemike 01:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and tagged... whoopty doo. — ξxplicit 01:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28 November 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Edit history, edit summaries and interests look extremely WP:DUCK-ish to me. - eo (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC) eo (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2010 (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]
07 December 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

WP:DUCK, already blocked temporarily (yesterday) for edit warring on Ciara-related article. - eo (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2010 (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]

 Confirmed

08 January 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Seems ducky, works with several Ciara-related articles and specializes in discographies. These socks rarely come in ones anymore, checking for sleepers is always beneficial here. — ξxplicit 02:11, 8 January 2011 (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]

 Likely based on same IP ranges as in the past and similar user agents. Probably much more obvious though by looking at behavior, though :) –MuZemike 03:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

26 January 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

WP:DUCK, similar interests, edit summaries, etc. Please check for any additional accounts also. Thanks in advance - eo (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2011 (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]
29 March 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Both edit extensively in Big Time Rush articles (the show, band and songs). Numerous near misses, zero overlaps:

3Feb 0:23 - 1:22 VJF 3Feb 1:34 - 1:40 IP

22Feb 1:36 - 1:41 VJF1 22Feb 1:59 IP 22Feb 17:58 - 18:16 VJF1 22Feb 18:36 - 18:36 IP 22Feb 18:41 VJF 22Feb 19:00 - 19:55

23Feb 0:37 - 0:37 IP 23Feb 1:15 - 1:44 VJF 23Feb 2:12 IP

24Feb 19:35 IP 24Feb 19:50 - 20:26

15March 19:27 - 20:04 VJF 15March 20:20 - 20:27 IP

While the IP is blocked, VJF is continuing to edit.

16March 19:21 - 19:37 VJF 16March 19:54 IP SummerPhD (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2011 (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]
Correction: TrEeMaNsHoE (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 01:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. That'll teach me to use Special:ListUsers rather than the search bar. Courcelles 01:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, User:TrEeMaNsHoE is  Stale.

Secondly, User:VictoriaJusticeFan1 and User:GlennMartinFan are very  Unlikely, bordering on Red X Unrelated.

Finally, the following accounts are  Confirmed as each other:

 IP blocked; all that needs to be done are to block and tag the confirmed socks.

Looking at editing behaviors and patterns, I would say those confirmed accounts are likely socks of TrEeMaNsHoE. –MuZemike 01:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

General editing interests and style have got both mine and Ericorbit's spidey sense's going. As usual, his talk page is filling up with warnings and templates from other editors, just not quite at a level to warrant a block yet. It's the edit summaries that have me the most suspicious: a quick look at Special:Contributions/PastoftheFuture vs. Special:Contributions/VerySwaggful gives me nearly enough evidence to press the block button. Not quite, though, so I'm asking for checkuser before I proceed. —Kww(talk) 01:09, 10 June 2011 (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]

Yeah, we still do.  Confirmed. –MuZemike 04:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10 August 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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]

User:Proof of Case was blocked by User:Kww based on WP:DUCK. User has claimed innocence in an unblock request. Requesting checkuser so that unblock request may be acted upon. I see nothing about this user account in the archive for TrEeMaNsHoE's sockpuppetry case. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of Case was later found to be  Confirmed after Kww's block. –MuZemike 02:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10 September 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Began editing in earnest shortly after Proof of Case was blocked, with a strong overlap in areas of interest. Genre edit-warring. Only reasons I want a checkuser to confirm is that the warning/conflict rate is slightly better than normal and the account was actually created well before Proof of Case was blocked.—Kww(talk) 11:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC) —Kww(talk) 11:59, 10 September 2011 (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]

I am not sure if these are related to the Treemanshoe, since Proof of Case is editing from a very different geographical location, but MariaJaydHicky (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Mariahicky (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are  Confirmed as being related. J.delanoygabsadds 23:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked MariaJaydHicky indef, left the Mariahicky account alone. While I couldn't see any valid reason for the multiple accounts, and the articles did overlap, I couldn't see any clear-cut abuse of using the two accounts.—Kww(talk) 03:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23 September 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The IP is showing very, very similar similarities to the other IP that cause the same problems months ago. Both edit Ciara pages causing chaos, only going by what they say and not the facts. Compare contribs First IP New IP Candyo32 21:02, 23 September 2011 (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]
  • information Administrator note I've merged this case to TrEeMaNsHoE, as it's clearly them. The two IPs geolocate to the same place, and they match IPs in the archives. I've blocked 68.79.93.52 for a month; the other IP hasn't been used in several months, so there's not much point in blocking it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
06 August 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

With re-surgence of Ciara, Brexx appears to have returned in the form of a user called TheCountdown. She/he has reunited Brexx (and confirmed sock puppets) revisions at Like A Surgeon (Ciara song) about the validity of the song being a single. See diffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. There's enough edits there to violate WP:3RR. Although Brexx socks had little to do with another Ciara page Speechless (Ciara song), TheCountdown/IPs has ignited similar arguments there 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Again enough to block on the grounds of WP:3RR. Its more the nature and tone of the edits mimicks brexx exactly. the same arguments, same targets, same disregard for wikipedia policies. etc. I've requested checkuser as this is how we've always filed Brexx reports in the past. In reality it might not be required. It might be obvious from the evidence given. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 16:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note since the report was filed anther IP in the same range made an equal revision (even the edit summaries are the same) here. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 16:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the IP, that was me, however it was by accident, I left my laptop in hibernate, so when i clicked back on the wikipedia tab, it still looked like I was signed in, when it actually logged me out, because I had not edited in awhile. I immediately signed in after this realization. There is no cause for alarm. --TheCountdown (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes my computer does, that which explains why it I accidentally edited some things as an Ip, however it was in no reason to get out of something or participate in sock puppetry or anything of that matter,just a mistake. I will be more careful in the future. Plus, Lil-Unique1, instead of worrying about getting me off of wikipedia, could you please read what I wrote on your talk page. --TheCountdown (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I would like to defend myself, I just created an account. As you'll see by my contributions, I am a Ciara fan, (I even started the page for One Woman Army). With that, it concerned me that a song review and unreliable page (which was false about other artist releases) was being used as a source for Like a Surgeon. I was also wondering why Speechless was a single, when it was never sent to radio. ( with only a digital release and video, its just like Beyonce's 1+1) The case brought forth against simply states that I am a sock, because f my beliefs, however, I have backed them up. It also states that I am suspect because I edit Ciara related articles, but there is such thing as more than one fan of Ciara. Anyway, I believe the users who brought this case about know this, as they are the ones who are simply ignoring what I am trying to say. If you look at the edit history of both songs, you will see that it is them who were trying to get a different version of the page, so that is a conflict of interest. They simply want to have their way, and believe that by blocking me they can. In addition, I'm to sure how, but it seems that they are using each other to get out of the three-revert rule. (you can see this by looking at both songs page histories. I tried talk page communication posting my thoughts, but was ignored by User:Lil-Unique1, and was threaded with a block by User:Status. After posting on Status's page, he commented by stating that "I posted the same thing on Lil-Unique1's page. How does this user know this?. I believe that there is something bigger at hand, as these users seem to gang up on me to get there way. Anyway, that is besides the point: I am just asserting the fact that I am not a sock, just a concerned user, who wants to make sure that everything on the page is true. --TheCountdown (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any user can click on another user's page so there's nothing fishy going on in that sense. It's not a case of ganging up as such. Its a case of the majority support the idea that "Speechless" and "Like a Surgeon" are singles Several users helped create the pages as WP:Good articles which should stand as an example of what a good article looks like. If you disagree with the a consensus/opinion you should discuss with the most frequent editors on the article's talkpage. this report is to specifically address concerns that your edits closely match the edits of blocked/banned user. Issues with article content should be brought up on the article's talk pages. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • By using the word consensus, you must be able to state that it is possible for multiple users to have thsame opinion, which is all this case is. I just happen to have the same opinion as a previous user, so I am a sock puppet. If that were true, then most of the wikipedia community could be linked with someone else. As I've stated before, I like Ciara so I want to edit her articles, which is something I can see that we share, but are we linked, No. Also you and Status share the same opinion, but are you linked, no. all evidence is circumstantial. Plus, looking as that Brexx;s edit history, he hasn't edited in ages, so how can I be linked to him at all?--TheCountdown (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

People should feel free to evaluate whether the IP edits and the named editor's edits constitute socking, but, after having blocked several hundred Brexx socks, I see no reason to believe that this is Brexx.—Kww(talk) 17:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that this was definitely an "on-the-fence" case for as to whether this a Brexx sock or not. There's probably a seperate issue around community engagement and edit warring to be dealt with at a more appropriate forum. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's TrEeMaNsHoE. Blocking.—Kww(talk) 17:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to clerk: this is clearly TrEeMaNsHoE, and I've blocked the account as his sock. You need to make sure that when this closes, it goes to TrEeMaNsHoE's archive, not Brexx's.—Kww(talk) 18:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TrEeMaNsHoE/Archive&oldid=1138681081"