| Revision as of 16:53, 12 March 2015 editFavre1fan93 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors104,198 edits →Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:21, 13 March 2015 edit undoMailer diablo (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators55,575 edits request completedNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| =====<big>12 March 2015</big>===== | =====<big>12 March 2015</big>===== | ||
| {{SPI case status| |
{{SPI case status|completed}} | ||
| ;Suspected sockpuppets | ;Suspected sockpuppets | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| ======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== | ======<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;">☺ · ] · ]</span> 04:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | *{{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;">☺ · ] · ]</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. - ] 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. - ] 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''! '''] ]''' 10:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | *{{clerknote}} {{ping|Salvidrim!|Mailer diablo}} How do you mean "TreCoolGuy is definitely stale"? He made three edits ''today''! '''] ]''' 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 ]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;">☺ · ] · ]</span> 14:23, 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 ]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;">☺ · ] · ]</span> 14:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::{{endorse}} Based on . '''] ]''' 14:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | :::{{endorse}} Based on . '''] ]''' 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. - ] (]) 16:53, 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. - ] (]) 16:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| * My apologies. I did not see that coming either. {{confirmed}} {{user|Zzaxx1}} and TreCoolGuy are the same. - ] 18:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> | ----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> | ||
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 Misplaced Pages: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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Clerk endorsed Based on this edit. Vanjagenije (talk) 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. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
Categories: