Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trsaelee/Archive

27 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Each of these users creates an account, adds an external link to brminerals.com, and then abandons the account to switch to another. This is a common spammer tactic to attempt to avoid detection. I suspect that there are other related accounts that I haven't found that may be spamming related links, since that is what I've seen several times before, so a checkuser would be helpful. Deli nk (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)




 * Sorry for my confusion, but since you retitled this page to change the sockmaster from Michael Desir to Trsaelee, which one do you mean is stale? And can the other three still be checked against each other?  Thanks, Deli nk (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The master is .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Trsalee is stale. Yes, the other accounts can be compared against each other, but I or another CheckUser may wait to see if a clerk endorses such a check.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * From behavioral evidence, the master and all three socks look quite certain to be socks. I'm inclined to endorse the case for a sleeper check, though. what are your thoughts? Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 18:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As well as the likely possibility of finding more accounts, if the check shows that this site is more commonly spammed than in these 4 cases then it would be worth blacklisting. Sam Walton (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Group 1 – the following accounts are ✅ from each other:
 * is ✅ to, a blocked sock of and ❌ to Group 1. See Sockpuppet investigations/Trevorconaz.
 * I've blocked the accounts in Group 1 without tags. I'll leave the tagging up to the discretion of the clerks but am available for questions.
 * I've blocked and tagged Kalcvins appropriately. No need to add the account to the other case.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Trsaelee, the master, is almost certainly the master based on behavioral evidence. Based on the extent and spammy nature of the socking, I believe some sort of (indefinite?) block is warranted, though I'll leave that to.
 * Regarding tags for the socks: Should they be "CU-confirmed" or "suspected"? There was CU-confirmed socking, but the master was not confirmed by CU because of staleness. What tags do you think we should use, Sam? Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It took me a little while going through all the various Template:Sock options but I think they're now all tagged correctly. Sam Walton (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The contribs of the newly confirmed socks, other than adding links to brminerals.com, also include adding links to 998qxw.com. I found other links to that domain using Special:LinkSearch, and it looks like two other users have added links to that website: in August and  in February. The August one is stale, but  do you think it'd be reasonable to request CU on the February one? Seems like a similar pattern. (Or do you think that'd be fishing?) Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 03:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support a CU check on given the likelihood of other accounts. Should we open a fresh SPI or do it here? Sam Walton (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the master and tagged the other accounts. Sam Walton (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - Thanks, I agree that we should do another check. I'm thinking we should do it here; could a CheckUser check:
 * The contribs of the newly confirmed socks, other than adding links to brminerals.com, also include adding links to 998qxw.com. I found other links to that domain using Special:LinkSearch, and it looks like two other users have added links to that website: in August and  in February. The August one is stale, but  do you think it'd be reasonable to request CU on the February one? Seems like a similar pattern. (Or do you think that'd be fishing?) Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 03:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support a CU check on given the likelihood of other accounts. Should we open a fresh SPI or do it here? Sam Walton (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the master and tagged the other accounts. Sam Walton (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - Thanks, I agree that we should do another check. I'm thinking we should do it here; could a CheckUser check:

Thanks. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 22:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Stepphhyy is either or just .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)