Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TJ Spyke

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

TJ Spyke
SanjayPatelofCanada's first edit was to request that TJ Spyke's unblock be given different considerations than was proposed by another individual at WP:AN. He then proceeded to comment on the current "SlimVirgin sockpuppet(s)" debate at WP:ANI. I find these really suspicious from an entirely new user. Should I be incorrect in my suspicions of some sort of abusive sockpuppetry, I will unblock the user in question.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Code letter: B
 * Code letter: B
 * Code letter: B
 * ✅, except not TJ Spyke; this appears to be Dereks1x. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

TJ Spyke



 * Code letter:B

First: [] and []. Almost the same wording in edit summaries: self reverting to avoid 3RR.
 * Then there is: [] and . The first refers to MSN messengers, and Lrr's name is Mr. Kennedy. The second is a site where TJ Spkye is Mr. Kennedy. Frankly... Kennedy is a popular wrestler, but the fact that two editors (that edit many of the same articles) use it, is a bit suspicious.
 * And my final point is: TJ Spyke's block log. TJ was blocked on June 6, then Lrrr IV starts editing alot on June 8 (and prior to that he hadn't edited since March 23). Then TJ is blocked on July 8: Lrrr IV starts editing alot more once again. RobJ1981 19:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

TJ Spyke

 * Code letter: E
 * Code letter: E
 * Code letter: E

These two users have had similar editing patterns over an extended period of time. Notably during edit wars that TJ would go over the 3 Revert Rule limit during edit wars

From already started earlier edit war on WWE No Mercy:
 * Maestro25 changes the edit done by 3Bulletproof316 from the day before:
 * TJ Spyke reverts (1)
 * Maestro25 reverts (1)
 * TJ Spyke reverts (2)
 * Maestro25 reverts (2)
 * TJ Spyke reverts (3)
 * Maestro25 reverts (3)
 * At this point TJ would have commited 3RR by reverting again


 * Bulletproof316 reverts to version by TJ Spyke
 * Then the page was protected

This is not a single occasion where the two editors have done similar revert warring together, for example in the history of SummerSlam (2006) quite a few months ago. TJ Spyke has also a history of using a sockpuppet by the archived RFCU page he used a sockpuppet/meatpuppet to revert war on the WWE New Year's Revolution article and another confirmed sockpuppet when he revert warred on the WrestleMania 23 article. His block log already shows signs of his 3RR violations as well —  Moe  02:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hahah. No way... you actually think?-- bullet proof  3:16 03:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been here since October 15, 2005. You think I'd be crazy enough to be talking to myself this whole time?-- bullet proof  3:16 03:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Me and bulletproof agree a lot, but we are not the same person. This is my first account at WP, bulletproof had already been here for months. TJ Spyke 04:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? These two are definitely not the same person. Bmg 916 SpeakSign 04:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Agreeing a lot" is one thing, but basically helping each other avoid 3RR is a little too obvious in my opinion. TJ clearly knows what 3RR is (and has been blocked for it several times). So to get around the 3RR, he has a "person that he agrees with a lot" to revert? It seems very suspicious to me. RobJ1981 04:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Prepare to eat crow when the checkuser shows we are different people. TJ Spyke 04:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That comment wasn't needed. In any event (no matter the outcome of this): helping each other avoid 3RR is simply wrong and shouldn't be happening, period. Use the talk page in edit wars, instead of reverting so much. Revert/edit wars solve nothing. Getting a friend (or using another account) to weasel out of a 3RR violation shouldn't be happening. RobJ1981 05:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I shouldn't have made the crow comment, but I just find it laughable that you are so sure we are the same person. We don't use each other to avoid 3RR. In the case of Maestro, I tried discussing it with him but he basically said he was right and wouldn't listen (even after I provided proof supporting my side). TJ Spyke 05:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

TJ Spyke



 * Code letter: G

I have reason to believe TJ Spyke is using sockpuppets to create the illusion of a dispute between multiple editors to bolster his side in an edit debate even after previously being found out to be doing so in two previous RFCU cases, in which both have found TJ Spyke to be using sockpuppets. Un a previous RFCU Lrrr IV was found not to match TJ Spyke however I believe that there is evidence to support that Lrrr is a meatpuppet used in conjunction with TJ Spyke to create consensus.

The reason for this RFCU comes from a rather mundane edit war on the page for WikiProject Professional wrestling in which there is a debate over the spelling of the word "rumour/rumor". The original writer of the entry,, has expressed a desire to maintain it as his original spelling "rumour". This was changed by TJ Spyke to "rumor" as well as Lrrr IV making his first edits on the page to revert "rumour" to Spyke's version of "rumor" which given the previous RFCU case seems to show at least a relationship between Spyke and Lrrr in aiding each others edits. In addition a new user, proudformykids, was created and its first edits were to the project page to change "rumour" to the TJ Spyke version of "rumor" which is very suspect in itself.

Given that TJ Spyke has been found to use sockpuppets in the past in support of his views, claiming they "share opinions" I think there is grounds for a checkuser here and possibly proof that TJ Spyke has continuously used sockpuppets to further his own views giving the illusion of a group of editors supporting his views which is far worse than the rather mundane debate over the English/American English debate over a simple spelling. –– Lid(Talk) 03:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

TJ Spyke

 * Code letter: F
 * Code letter: F
 * Code letter: F
 * Code letter: F

TJ Spyke is currently serving a block for a 3RR violation at WrestleMania 23. This request has not just been placed due to standard block evasion, but for using sockpuppets in disputes that he is involved in. Lrr's second edit is to support a Spyke AFD, fouth edit supports Spykes argument at Talk:Wii Play and seventh edit is on Talk:WrestleMania 23 the talk page for the article Spyke was blocked for. The user also asked for a page semi-unprotection for a page that Spyke usually frequents, so that he could edit it,. Note that the user's sixth edit does not comply with Spyke's position.

DS9 Voyager almost seems an obvious sockpuppet of Spyke's, although has not been involved in a violation of his block. His user page history shows that it was ripped off Sypke's.  This user is involved in sockpuppetry on page move discussions, and always backs up Spyke's position as can be seen in here, here, and here. I actually approached DS9 to see if he would disclose whether or not he was Spyke's "brother" such as Spyke has claimed for a previous RFCU. After that, activity went silent for a month before my message was quietly removed from his user talk page. - hahnch e  n 00:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ in part, ❌ in part. TJ and DS9 are identical. Llr is not IP-related. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I must have been mistaken, the editting patterns, Wii and Wrestling just looked too similar, as did their editing times. (Sypke requested an unblock today, 7 minutes before Lrrr started editing).  I still wouldn't be surprised if something else was going on. - hahnch  e  n 00:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

TJ Spyke





 * 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.  Nish kid 64  02:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

. 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, User_talk:TJ_Spyke. He's been blocked twice only in a few months because of 3RR. RobJ1981 01:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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)
 * Diffs:
 * Revert 1, 00:09, November 24, 2006 TJ Spyke
 * Revert 2 65.37.57.95
 * Revert 3 65.37.57.95
 * Revert 4 TJ Spyke
 * Revert 5 Edgecution
 * Revert 6, 21:55, November 24, 2006 Edgecution (note: 3RR period ends here, next diff is to demonstrate gaming)
 * 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)

✅. 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) ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''