Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TreCoolGuy/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


TreCoolGuy

TreCoolGuy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
29 August 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Notorious for being assertive in numerous Marvel Cinematic Universe pages, he has now opened a second account, signing a comment he left on my talk page when signed in as Drummer as TreCool. proof. Rusted AutoParts 01:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Not sure if I can edit here. If in the wrong place, an experienced editor, please move or let me know.) Now then. Here is some more evidence. Rusted came to me after the "proof" edit occurred, as he must have seen I had interacted with Drummer. Initially I thought it was an erroneous copy paste move by a new user, but looking at their contributions, they bear a strikingly similar set of pages, of which Tre contributes to. But what convinced me was this edit. This request to add content is an edit that Tre has attempted to add to the List of Paramount Pictures films page, here and here as examples. Shortly after that last example, Drummer made virtually the same edit to this page. As I dug deeper, I noticed that both users edits are tagged with "mobile". Yes, I know that users can now edit on a mobile device, but they are the only two users I have seen with this tagging. And one last piece of evidence, once Rusted started this investigation, Drummer went to Tre's talk page, where they used strikingly similar grammar/sentence structure, and "both" users did not sign with four tildes, a very common occurrence with Tre. Also with that talk page post, Drummer posted (by how my computer is set up I believe) at 21:40, and Tre replied at 21:46, an eerily short amount of time that seems very plausible for one to log out of one account, log in to the other, and reply. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a suspected IP as well to be checked into. Suspicion can be attributed to the IPs contributions which are all pages Tre/Drummer is on, as well as the warnings they receive on their talk page. The warnings are for edits that Tre/Drummer is notable for doing: adding info that is either unsourced, unconfirmed, or original research. An example: an edit started by the IP, and that is ultimately completed by Drummer, only to be reverted in similar Tre/Drummer fashion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is more proof, besides the fact that Tre and Porter's names now both end ing "Guy". The syntax and structure of this "question" to Rusted's talk page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well originally Porter was taken so it was just going to be ThePorter but that was taken aswell so I just added in Guy in ThePorter. Its nothing really that important Favre1fan. - ThePorterGuy 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Look I dont know what this is about. All I did was add Chris Hemsworth because on the Avengers 2 page he is credited as Thor. - ThePorterGuy 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Wow. I really hope the proper Wiki-editors who investigate this gets to this quickly. This has got to stop. Just. Wow. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you on that Favre1fan93, its getting out of control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePorterGuy (talk • contribs) 04:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Look I dont know why you would think Im Drummer. Im not I just met the user after getting messaged by that user that there is an investigation that we are the same person. Im not DrummerSP, I dont know why he would credit me for his "work" so I guess ask him that. Thanks - TreCoolGuy

Mainly because both your edit histories have the same areas of activity you inhabit? Plus signing your name when your Drummer. It doesn't look very good for you. Rusted AutoParts 02:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See detailed evidence in my post above, concerning what Rusted is saying. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • First I was online when Drummer sent me that message. Second I saw that Drummer wanted to start up a group that likes and supports similar things and hey that user supported the whole Iron Man 3/Avengers paramount thing. And the last thing that user is NEW!!!! Of course that user wouldnt really know what else to add on after signing the accountname after an edit/message. - TreCoolGuy
That's precisely what a sockpuppet is. A new account made by an already existing user. And I'm sorry, that is a rather lame excuse. Both of your edit histories are practically identical. You sign your signatures the same way. There is no way DrummerSP is not you. Rusted AutoParts 15:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah screw you Rusted AutoParts. What the hell is your problem because we had a little edit conflict in the past doesn't make you have the right to say that! I sent DrummerSP a message on his talk page and the user hasn't written back yet. So how about you stop being such a jackass and stop accusing us of being the same person. If we are the same person which we are not why would I argue and waste my time with you. - TreCoolGuy
I should have you blocked on the grounds of those insults. Very inappropriate when you're under investigation. Also, it's rather convenient that Drummer isn't here defending himself as he's the one reported and it's you that's aggressively fighting. Rusted AutoParts 17:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am truley sorry about Tre and he has no right saying that. How about me and User:Rusted AutoParts just forget this ever happened. - DrummerSP —Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We will wait until the result of this investigation, because right now, it really does appear like you are one entity. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I asure you that we are not the same. I could have acting like a jackass to you for what you said. - [[User:DrummerSP|DrummerSP] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.153.156 (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as an IP just commented, signed as DrummerSP, an IP that has edited numerous pages that TreCoolGuy has touched...yeah. || Tako (bother me) || 00:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And look now. The IP as "Drummer" said he could be a "jackass" to me, while above, Tre told Rusted to "stop being such a jackass". So yeah. Not really any question now. Exact same choice of words. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reading what you have all said and seeing that even Drummer who I thought would be on my side due to the whole investigation. I would like three things to happen one block my account and never give me my account back, two I want you to stop the investigation and three I am so sorry to Rusted AutoParts for calling you a jackass and accusing you of being Drummer, Favre1fan93 and DrummerSP for blaming this investigation on him. From what Rusted said I have to act like an adult and a actually appreciate it, it was a very good wake up call. Please dont hate Green Day either this isnt the real Tre Cool's account. Once again Im sorry and please block and never allow the Tre account back on thank you. - TreCoolGuy

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - Rather similar behavior. First diff is strongest evidence. Based upon evidence provided by Favrefan they are likely the same or probable technically. NativeForeigner Talk 22:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: This is actually confusing, in part due to how obvious it is. Nonetheless  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me with regards to the two named suspected socks. His repeated calls for the case to be closed and for only one account to be blocked indicate to me a high chance of there being more accounts out there to catch. Master blocked one week for disruption and socking but I'm inclined to lengthen it should CU turn up more socks, as the user has repeatedly claimed otherwise. NativeForeigner Talk 09:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All accounts  Confirmed. no No comment with respect to IP address(es). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
05 October 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This is rather sad as this is the second investigation on this guy, the prior one he was found out. Now he's back, with two new accounts that were created the time he was blocked, with the exact same editing styles as before. Mainstream is attempting to be pally with Favre1fan93 in order to throw off suspicion. Favre being the co-investigator in his first investigation. This has to end. Rusted AutoParts 03:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Rusted AutoParts 03:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have dealt with Mainstreammark, but I have not seen anything that leads me to believe he is the same as TreCoolGuy. He has been contained to the Batman: Arkham pages, and initially made similar edits as Tre has, but, I believe, has since overcome that and has made positive contributions to those page - something that is hard to say for Tre based on his editing. I don't believe that he is trying to throw me off, as Rusted suspected. As for The Nateman, I have not personally dealt or interacted with them, so I can not give a valid opinion on them. From their contributions they appear to be hanging around 2015 in film, a frequent article of Tre's, but I only see one set of edits - adding "TBA" films - that resembles Tre's, which I don't think is enough to accuse them of this. But let CheckUser say. I'm more concerned that Tre is making the same type of edits he was before his initial block - unsourced content, rumors, etc. - than him socking again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's mainly concerning me with Mainstream is his account's inception, which was around the same time TreCool was first blocked. And if I'm wrong with him, I apologize. Rusted AutoParts 12:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something I noticed is a recurring theme in usernames: "TreCoolGuy", "PorterGuy", "NateMan". Rusted AutoParts 23:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

I'm speechless...I can't believe that I'm involved with this investigation. First off, I'd like to thank Mr. Favre for the respect he's shown me since the day I "reformed" myself and vouching for me in this serious investigation. Mr. AutoParts, I truly believe that this is a mistake. Truth be told, I can't stand people like TreCoolGuy. Those who think they can get away by cheating the system and resorting to mass amounts of deception. It's sickening is what it is. This is my confession.

Many people do not know this about me (excluding Favre1fan93 and Darkwarriorblake), but when I first joined Wikipedia, I was a user known as WWE Batman131. During my time as WWE, I did not know how uploading images worked, nor did I know what copyrighting meant on Wikipedia. I uploaded at least 20 images and they were deleted within a week's notice. One day, I tried logging into my account, but my password attempts were continuously denied. I thought I could simply change my password. When I tried to, I was requested to provide the e-mail account associated with the Wikipedia account. To my utter disappointment, I remembered that I had never associated an e-mail account with WWE Batman131. I was overwhelmed and decided to create the user I am now Mainstreammark. After a couple of edits as Mark, I felt guilt within me and tried to figure out a way to reform my friendship with Mr. Favre and Mr. Blake as you can see here (the same message was sent to Mr. Favre). This prompted Mr. Favre and Mr. Blake to discuss there thoughts on the new red-link user editing Arkham pages. I could not bear the guilt anymore and so I found it in myself to tell them both the truth as you can see here. After seeing that both gentlemen were kind enough to give me the benefit of the doubt on my password situation, I thought that through reforming myself, I could earn their respect (which I hope I'm progressing with). I'm glad that Mr. Favre sees me as a progressing newcomer and I hope to continue that trend.

I absolutely do not have a gram of respect for TreCoolGuy and his sockpuppets. I don't know about The Nateman or his motives, however I do know that I have no utter type of connection with the likes of TreCoolGuy. I'll answer any questions in order to prove my innocence in this investigation. - Mainstreammark (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really appreciate that Mainstreammark, I dont respect other users like you that think that you are better than everybody. - TreCoolGuy
You mean the users who's respect I try to earn? Believe me, I am more than aware of your attitude Tre. You think that anything anybody says is implicit. You try to "read between the lines". I mean, where did I say that I think I am better than everybody? Get this processed through your mind correctly. I am explicitly telling you that I don't respect you. You don't even deserve to be on Wikipedia because you are a master puppeteer. You'd be better off working at a circus. Do you even have respect for yourself? - Mainstreammark (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you, no personal attacks. Read that and possibly reconsider how you are coming at this and remember what this investigation is about. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Mr. Favre.....and Tre. I'll restore my inner chi. Personal attacks are never the solution. My apologies (exhales deeply). - Mainstreammark (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I belong in a circus? Thinking you can say anything you want to anybody? I do respect myself dude, I think you dont and you compensate that by making remarks to me. My apologies Favre. - TreCoolGuy
Again I apologize, the whole "circus" remark was uncalled for. Let's put that aside and get back to the point of this investigation. I'm hoping that Mr. Favre and Mr. AutoParts will reconsider me being needed in this investigation. I'm just here to prove my innocence, and to prove that I have nothing to do with TreCoolGuy and The Nateman (who I'm wondering when will put up his argument in this investigation). - Mainstreammark (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to aplogize to you too aswell. Im not really a jerk I just got really mad about being in another investigation. After this is over I would like to call you my friend after this Mainstream. We should really work together to prove our innocence about this investigation. Again I apologize for my behavor. - TreCoolGuy
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • I fail to see sufficient evidence of sockpuppetry here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
09 May 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Personally confirmed it here, after evidently seeing my post to TriiipleThreat's talk page. Obviously being done to circumvent indefinite block on TreCoolGuy account. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Let me explain this, yes this is Tre. But the thing is I'm not using my account and on my talk page it says I was once TreCoolGuy. So please this is not necessary I'm not using the Tre account at all, I haven't gotten into any edit conflicts with any other users. So please I would like to keep this account. Thanks - Longshot (talk) 9 May 2014
If you are sincere, I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:SOCK#NOTIFY and add Template:Alternative account to both your account pages.--TriiipleThreat (talk)
Ok no problem thank you TriiipleThreat|Triiiple. - Longshot45 (talk) 9 May 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While that is a valid policy to use alternate accounts, Triiiple, Tre/Longshot fails the bullet "Clean start under a new name" at WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Based on that point, this new user is just evading their old block, because Longshot has returned to old topic areas, editing patterns, and behavior (see my post below) and there is an active block on their old account. Admins, please make note of this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just about getting into edit conflicts, it's also about the content of your edits. And from the looks of it, you are still making edits that caused (or prepping edits) that got you in edit wars and blocked in the first place. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be more considerate about my edits for now on. - Longshot45 (talk) 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I'm allowed to say anything here, but this is a clear cut case of block invasion in my opinion. Previous account blocked indefinitely, new account springs up and continues making the same edits, then confesses they're the blocked account. Rusted AutoParts 13:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment Rusted, but I think your interaction ban would still apply, since they are the same person. No definite, but I would play it safe and not continue in this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Confirmed and  IP blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note This is not the way to go about things. TreCoolGuy was blocked less than a month ago for disruption. I appreciate being open about this sockpuppet (for once) but it's not like this is a person who has done long soul-searching and decided to turn a new leaf, this is someone who less than a month ago made "joke" vandalism to articles (including a BLP). I'm explicitly blocking. If TreCoolGuy wants to rehabilitate, do so from the main account and try to convince an administrator that you are sincere or perhaps consider WP:OFFER. -- Atama頭 17:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14 June 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

TreCoolGuy was blocked a while back for disruptive editing over articles in the same category (superhero films and the related articles). Now I noticed that an article created by TreCoolGuy (DC Cinematic Universe) has been restored multiple times by Light2Shadow. Very duckish to me, but requesting CU to confirm and check for any sleepers. STATic message me! 06:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Don't assume that TreCoolGuy and I are the same person just because I'm editing on a page he created. Using that method, everybody who edits on articles who are not the creator should be accused of being the same person. I don't just edit superhero films. The only times I restore the DC Cinematic Universe article is when new information is released and I'm not the only one has edited on the DC Cinematic Universe article. Light2Shadow (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may just be his obsession with those types of articles, but just to be safe, a Checkuser should probably look more into this. (And don't fling accusations at me about my username either. I found a couple of other users with similar usernames, namely Light2Shadow and LightandDarkness, and I thought that my current username would be a great way to remain anonymous, so I chose to adopt it.) LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having watched Tre and their edits over time, Light2Shadow definitely is not them in my eyes, but Checkuser might as well be done to confirm. But it still does not mean your editing style was right. You don't restore a page to add info, only to wait for it to be redirected again. But that is a separate issue not for this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk declined - I see very little behavioral evidence linking them other than the recreation. In particular, Light2Shadow is very interested in Avatar: The Last Airbender while TreCoolGuy has made no related edits, and we see the reverse for user talk page usage. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per KoH, closing. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
08 October 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


2014-04-14T11:52:32: TreCoolGuy blocked
2014-05-24T12:40:28: Grohl1 created

Grohl1 re-creates TreCoolGuy's deleted article (this time in minimal capitalization as) FOX animated universe,[1] [2] and inserts it into many related articles.[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Also creates Category:FOX animated universe [18]

TreCoolGuy's work on the deleted article FOX Animated Universe is probably visible to administrators only, so I don't have diffs handy.

Similar range of interests: Fox network cartoons and superheros.

Idiosyncratic behavior of linking user name to pronoun.[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] 

 Thank [[User:GSK|you]]! - [[User:TreCoolGuy|TreCoolGuy]]
 How else could [[User:Mikepellerin|we]] expand on this FOX animated universe?

Could be coincidental, but the current AfD finds the term FOX animated universe neologistic. Checkuser requested. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • His edits to Marvel related articles, as well as the occurrence of a drummer being referenced in his name, I have no trouble believing it's yet another sock. Rusted AutoParts 20:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I caught him a few days ago as well, hence my passive aggressive comment in the AfD for his most recent article. Bit worried that no one caught him sooner, though. Should be easy to identify given the aggressive way he edits Wikipedia. He seems to have a knack for duplicate content, as well. Nymf (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had had my suspicions about this a while back, and regret not bringing it up sooner. I had some weak evidence then, but it still should have been brought up to at least be looked into. I'm glad Edgare submitted this though, and it is now taken care of. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
12 March 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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[edit]

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[edit]
  •  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]
  • no 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]
  • 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]
  • Zzaxx1  Blocked and tagged (up from the existing non-indef block). Props to Vanjagenije for spotting my initial mistake! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
22 June 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Creation of Fox animated shared universe and Template:Fox Animated Shared Universe. These were also created by previous sock. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FOX_animated_universe and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_4 EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Definitely seems to be editing across similar articles that Tre and his socks previously did. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
26 June 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Both this user and IPs have been editing Marvel Cinematic Universe-related articles, in a similar style as Tre, which is unsourced original research, or rumors from unreliable sources such as Comicbookmovie.com. The IP 75.xx has also been editing YEAR in film articles, another frequent area Tre and his sock's edited. The recent contributions by each supports this. Given that another SPI request was just closed for Tre, if this turns out to be true, I can't help but think they are making multiple accounts now, one each to support their various article interests. Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tre has emerged and commented about this new investigation. Which happened the last time they were accused of more socks (see the 12 March 2015 archive). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

This is Burningblue52, and I have nothing to do with whoever that other user is. I make edits to Marvel film characters, because it is something that I have interest in. To be marked as a suspect is really rather ridiculous. Half the time, the editors in this website site things incorrectly and don't acknowledge official character names/mantles. For me to be marked as 'suspected sockpuppet' or whatever it was....I have no clue how to fix. Thanks guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningblue52 (talk • contribs)

The titles have to be used in the film or they can't be used. Just because someone uses that identity in the comics doesn't mean they do in the MCU. If you aren't Tre's sockpuppet then when an Admin does a checkuser, you will be cleared. And if you are a sockpuppet of Tre, well then you should already know how this goes.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 07:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever a new redlinked account begins editing (mostly unhelpfully) MCU-related articles, it's almost certainly User:TreCoolGuy. And with this editor's lengthy edit history of adding unsourced or rumour tidbits to articles, it's no doubt in my mind the two accounts are one in the same. Rusted AutoParts 15:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

20 April 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Sassafras kaleidoscope's editing pattern mirrors that of TreCoolGuy's confirmed sock pockets Zzaxx1 and Grohl1. He reposts deleted categories under slightly different names in an attempt to avoid speedy deletion.

  1. Sassafras kaleidoscope, Zzaxx1 and Grohl1.
  2. Sassafras kaleidoscope, Zzaxx1, and Grohl1.
  3. Sassafras kaleidoscope, Zzaxx1, and Grohl1.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Jesus Christ, three years and he's still going? Rusted AutoParts 15:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also editing the same group of articles: YYYY in film articles, MCU related articles, "pop culture" films, and music articles. Definitely seems likely. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Dont say the lord's name in vain. - sassafras kaleidoscope 21 April 2016 (UTC)
That's seriously all you have to say? You're being investigated for sockpuppetry and you're calling me out for saying Jesus Christ? Rusted AutoParts 19:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike V: Are we sure that the old data for the CU is just not stale? The comment above is TreCoolGuy's M.O. 100% (unless he is just trolling). Schmidt-austin was blocked as a duck, meaning there were no CU. I would argue that "sassafras kaleidoscope" and "Schmidt-austin" are both TreCoolGuy. Nymf (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk -  Looks like a duck to me based on diffs provided by TriiipleThreat – "sleeper" check needed based on history (see archives). Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sassafras kaleidoscope is  Confirmed to Schmidt-austin, which is a sock of CensoredScribe. Mike V • Talk 16:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mike V:, should this be moved to CensoredScribe's SPI archive, or stay in Tre's? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, it's not all that essential to move it. The behavioral evidence, while helpful, isn't extensive enough that it would be used for future considerations. Having the account tagged should be sufficient. Mike V • Talk 16:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nymf: Looking further, it appears that the technical data for the previous CensoredScribe accounts was unavailable at the time of the block. It is possible that both accounts belong to TreCoolGuy. Mike V • Talk 20:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

27 June 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


This user created Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters, which Tre and his socks have done previously. And the tell-tale sign this is a sock, on Drax's talk page, the user did the give away formating trait of Tre, here, of replaying to a user by doing this: [[User:Username|You]] - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • I don't believe the two are related (any may have been addressed in Censored's SPI), but a clerk may tell us otherwise. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have my suspicions of Schmidt-Austin being connected to TreCoolGuy, as he recreated the same categories numerous times. Is there a possibility of meat puppetry? DarkKnight2149 21:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the user's pattern of behavior and preferred category topics, this appears to be someone who has been at this for at least ten years. As Creepy Crawler, this person was banned in 2007, and that was not the first. [24] - Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At Category_talk:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Creepy_Crawler, you can find evidence regarding a list of suspected and confirmed sockpuppets with this same style in 2008. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ponyo, can you provide some more help/insight here. You just blocked both Drax and Eggs (see below) for being socks of CensoredScribe. However, in my evidence above, Drax was clearly "Tre" given the user name formatting I presented. Is it possible Tre was a sock of Censored, meaning this is all one large case, not two? Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

05 July 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Same interest in Marvel Cinematic Universe, same style of editing (threatens to "block" a user here). Has been restoring Nick Fury (Marvel Cinematic Universe) from a redirect into an article, which TreCoolGuy first created. Has shown interest in years in film articles: [25], [26], and both have edited List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors. Sro23 (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2016 (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]

27 September 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

TreCoolGuy:

  1. [27]
  1. [28]
  1. [29]

MNgp023DRe:

  1. [30]
  1. [31]
  1. [32]

Both users have attempted to add previously deleted Marvel Cinematic Universe related categories to character articles. They also share a similar editing style (e.g. wikilinking usernames to pronouns like "you"). TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Comment: Yeah, I noticed the user adding the same categories that have been deleted repetitively to articles again (such as "MCU characters"). I immediately had a sense of deja vu. I find it hard to believe that this isn't connected to Schmidt-Austin and the others. Do you think they'll take a hint anytime this century? These categories are the Wikipedia equivalent of spam at this point... DarkKnight2149 03:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TreCoolGuy/Archive&oldid=1079535070"