Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TreCoolGuy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:21, 13 March 2015

TreCoolGuy

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

Populated account categories: confirmed

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TreCoolGuy/Archive.

12 March 2015

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

Zzaxx1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Editor interaction utility

All the evidence is right here. After being blocked back in October 2014, this is their first edit in 5 months. Zzaxx1 came on the scene in Jan 2015. Would like to see if any other users are out there that Tre is socking on. Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I'm on my phone right now so cant list them, but what about the IPs that began adding the same information that he insisted on adding after Zzaxx1 was blocked--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 08:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Clerk note: This sure seems like TreCoolGuy and Zzaxx1 are the same user, but I'm probably too involved administratively to make such a determination without an outside opinion. If it is indeed the same user, Zzaxx1 could be indef'ed and tagged as a sock. TreCoolGuy is definitely stale for CU purposes though, and I'm not sure a sleeper check can be justified since there is no evidence of other recent socking. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declined per Salvidrim!, CU won't yield anything useful here. A behavioral investigation is more appropriate in this instance. - Mailer Diablo 09:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: @Salvidrim! and Mailer diablo: How do you mean "TreCoolGuy is definitely stale"? He made three edits today! Vanjagenije (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije: I... I... wow. I am speechless. I've no idea how my mind processed these informations yesterday -- I saw the last case dating from October 2014 and somehow didn't realize that yesterday's edit meant we had fresh data, even though the account was blocked a long time ago. In light of this, I would endorse a CU check to link the two accounts (even though the behaviour makes it WP:DUCKy to my eyes), and it will hopefully find other sleepers, should they exist. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk endorsed Based on this edit. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That's the whole reason the SPI was opened again because of that edit. I had personal suspicions that the two may have been related, but didn't take the time to find the evidence connecting them. I still had Tre's talk on my watch and when I saw a new edit, I knew I had to report it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I did not see that coming either. Confirmed Zzaxx1 (talk · contribs) and TreCoolGuy are the same. - Mailer Diablo 18:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 =====<big>12 March 2015</big>=====
-{{SPI case status|endorse}}
+{{SPI case status|completed}}
 ;Suspected sockpuppets
@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 ======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>======
 *{{clerknote}} This sure seems like TreCoolGuy and Zzaxx1 are the same user, but I'm probably too involved administratively to make such a determination without an outside opinion. If it is indeed the same user, Zzaxx1 could be indef'ed and tagged as a sock. TreCoolGuy is definitely stale for CU purposes though, and I'm not sure a sleeper check can be justified since there is no evidence of ''other'' recent socking. <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User:Salvidrim!|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span style="color:white">Salvidrim!</span></span>]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:Salvidrim!|<span style="color:white">&#9993;</span>]]</span> 04:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
-:* {{declined}} per Salvidrim!, CU won't yield anything useful here. A behavioral investigation is more appropriate in this instance. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 09:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
+:* <s>{{declined}} per Salvidrim!, CU won't yield anything useful here. A behavioral investigation is more appropriate in this instance. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 09:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)</s>
 *{{clerknote}} {{ping|Salvidrim!|Mailer diablo}} How do you mean "TreCoolGuy is definitely stale"? He made three edits ''today''! '''[[User:Vanjagenije|<font color="008B8B">Vanjagenije</font>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<font color="F4A460">(talk)</font>]]''' 10:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 :* {{u|Vanjagenije}}: I... I... wow. I am speechless. I've no idea how my mind processed these informations yesterday -- I saw the last case dating from October 2014 and somehow didn't realize that yesterday's edit meant we had fresh data, even though the account was blocked a long time ago. In light of this, I would endorse a CU check to link the two accounts (even though the behaviour makes it [[WP:DUCK]]y to my eyes), and it will hopefully find other sleepers, should they exist. <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User:Salvidrim!|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span style="color:white">Salvidrim!</span></span>]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:Salvidrim!|<span style="color:white">&#9993;</span>]]</span> 14:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 :::{{endorse}} Based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TreCoolGuy&diff=prev&oldid=650995088 this edit]. '''[[User:Vanjagenije|<font color="008B8B">Vanjagenije</font>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<font color="F4A460">(talk)</font>]]''' 14:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 ::::Yeah. That's the whole reason the SPI was opened again because of that edit. I had personal suspicions that the two may have been related, but didn't take the time to find the evidence connecting them. I still had Tre's talk on my watch and when I saw a new edit, I knew I had to report it. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 16:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
+* My apologies. I did not see that coming either. {{confirmed}} {{user|Zzaxx1}} and TreCoolGuy are the same. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 18:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 ----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->