Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TJ Spyke

[edit] TJ Spyke

• TJ Spyke (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Edgecution (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 65.37.57.95 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log • checkip)

• Code letter: E

It seems a little too coincendental that at WWE New Year's Revolution there was 2 reverts by TJ, then he seemed to "sign off" and Edgecution came along and reverted it a third time. TJ has one other 3RR, and is just recently back from a block. The times TJ seems to be editing (from his edit history), are usually right after or before many of Edgecution's. I hope this is enough. RobJ1981 01:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The last 3RR violation was on the 22nd, and this user has a history of violating 3RR. I was consulting Rob on how to deal with this issue, and I do agree that the similarities in these two user's edits are a bit suspicious. I have reason to believe that the user was trying to avoid another 3RR violation by using a sockpuppet, and was evading a potential block. Nishkid64 02:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional information needed. Some diffs illustrating the violation would be helpful; also, please remember that 3RR violation is not three reverts within 24 hours, it's more than three in 24 hours (i.e. 4 or more). Essjay (Talk) 02:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what else to put. Should I go through TJ's and Edgecution's edit histories, and compare or what? I thought what I put originally would be enough. RobJ1981 07:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Both of you stated that he has violated 3RR multiple times; it would be helpful if you provided some diffs to show these violations. While we prefer that checkuser requests not be long and drawn out, we do need enough evidence to justify a check without having to dig into a users contributions looking for it. Essjay (Talk) 00:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Here you go, User_talk:TJ_Spyke/Archive_1#Regarding_reversions.5B12.5D_made_on_August_31.2C_2006_to_Bebi_.28Dragon_Ball_GT.29, User_talk:TJ_Spyke#Regarding_reversions.5B2.5D_made_on_November_22.2C_2006_to_WWE_New_Year.27s_Revolution. He's been blocked twice only in a few months because of 3RR. RobJ1981 01:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Clerk assistance required: Could a clerk look in on this and pull up a bit more information for me please? Essjay (Talk) 03:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Clerk note: Diffs:

1. Revert 1, 00:09, November 24, 2006 TJ Spyke
2. Revert 2 65.37.57.95
3. Revert 3 65.37.57.95
4. Revert 4 TJ Spyke
5. Revert 5 Edgecution
6. Revert 6, 21:55, November 24, 2006 Edgecution (note: 3RR period ends here, next diff is to demonstrate gaming)
7. Revert 7, 01:05, November 25, 2006 TJ Spyke (first edit to revert outside 3RR window, back on main account)

As requested by Essjay. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Edgecution is not a sockpuppet of mine. That is my brother's account, we only have 1 computer though so I have to log off when he wants to edit. TJ Spyke 05:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed. I can't speak to whether it is two users on the same computer or not, but they are definately coming from the same IP. Even if it is two users, it's meatpuppetry, and per WP:SOCK this should be treated as sockpuppetry. I'll leave it to the admin resolving the matter to decide whether to treat it as socks or as meatpuppetry to establish the same goal. Essjay (Talk) 05:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• We have similiar opinions, that's all. Is that a problem? TJ Spyke 06:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

(note, not acting as a clerk) Sorry, but I find it extremely difficult to believe you happen to share the same opinion over the marginalised argument of whether a poster should be included in an article. If it was whether Scientology is bad etc., I could almost believe it, but for this, no. Urge blocking. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• I told him why I thought it shouldn't be included and he agreed. TJ Spyke 06:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As a note, TJ continues to revert the poster off the WWE New Year's Revolution article saying there is no source. The poster appears to be real and is on several sites. But because it's not from WWE, TJ doesn't approve of it. This type of "article controlling" needs to stop. Will it really hurt the article if the poster remains? I don't think so. I believe the past few days... he has reverted the poster at least 3 times each. Not a violation of 3RR (since the 4th is the violation), but still pretty close. RobJ1981 05:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not article controlling. You have provided no source that the poster was real. Remember the nWo vs. DX Survivor Series poster? That looked real and was posted on several reliable sites, but that ended up being fake. So adding in a poster that could be fake hurts an article. TJ Spyke 05:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This page is not for discussion of user conduct or what to do about it; it's for requesting checkuser investigation and reporting the results thereof. That has already been done; it is now in the perview of the admin community to decide what to do about the results. If you'd like to continue to fight the matter out, take it to your talk pages, the article talk pages, or the Administrator's Noticeboard. Essjay (Talk) 11:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)