Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DisuseKid/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


DisuseKid

DisuseKid (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

15 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


Here are the parallels:

Comments by other users

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

The OP requested that I comment here. I have worked enough with both editors to say with about 99% confidence that these are not the same person. While it has only been about a week in WS's case, he has been very active in talk and his style there and in editing is quite different from that of Versus001. I could enumerate these differences in great detail, but it doesn't seem necessary. I don't think this complaint has any merit. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think I need to do that, per Bbb23's comments below. The burden of proof is on you, not me, and no outside party has asked me for more detail. By the way, I've filed one SPI in my time here. It had stronger circumstantial evidence than you do. It turned out to be a coincidence of timing. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand what you want to say, but the article intersection seems more than mere coincidence. Here's some more differences of the two: [6][7][8](He removed '''Bold text''')--Infinite0694 (Talk) 05:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC) EDIT:--Infinite0694 (Talk) 08:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sample:

Warner Sun: 

09:31, 11 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+22)‎ . . Shooting of Darren Goforth ‎ (current) [rollback: 4 edits] [rollback] [vandalism][rollback: 4 edits (B)]
09:30, 11 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Shooting of Darren Goforth ‎ (→‎Shannon Miles)
09:30, 11 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+24)‎ . . Shooting of Darren Goforth ‎
09:29, 11 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-57)‎ . . Shooting of Darren Goforth ‎ (→‎Suspect)
09:28, 11 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+9)‎ . . Shooting of Kathryn Steinle ‎ (→‎Francisco Sanchez)
09:28, 11 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-2)‎ . . Shooting of Kathryn Steinle ‎ (→‎Suspect)
09:18, 11 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-399)‎ . . Umpqua Community College shooting ‎ (→‎Perpetrator)
08:53, 11 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+571)‎ . . 2015 Houston shooting ‎ (Quanell X visit.) (current) [rollback: 1 edit] [rollback] [vandalism][rollback: 1 edit (B)]
08:44, 11 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Horror (film) ‎ (→‎Plot Synopsis)
08:43, 11 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+16)‎ . . 2014 Isla Vista killings ‎ (→‎Killing spree: Rewording.)
08:39, 11 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Umpqua Community College shooting ‎ (Reorganizing.)
08:36, 11 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-25)‎ . . m Oikos University shooting ‎ (→‎Details) (current) [rollback: 1 edit] [rollback] [vandalism][rollback: 1 edit (B)]
08:35, 11 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+13)‎ . . Chivalry of a Failed Knight ‎

Versus001: 

08:32, 11 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-55,052)‎ . . User talk:Versus001 ‎ (←Blanked the page)
08:31, 11 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+15)‎ . . Umpqua Community College shooting ‎ (→‎Perpetrator: Never mind. :'()
08:30, 11 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+66)‎ . . Shooting of Kathryn Steinle ‎
08:30, 11 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+304)‎ . . 2015 Tyrone shooting ‎ (current) [rollback: 4 edits] [rollback] [vandalism][rollback: 4 edits (B)]
08:30, 11 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+53)‎ . . Shooting of Darren Goforth ‎
08:30, 11 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-201)‎ . . User talk:Versus001 ‎ (Undid revision 685122746 by Versus001 (talk))
08:29, 11 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+43)‎ . . Shooting of Brian Moore ‎ (current) [rollback: 3 edits] [rollback] [vandalism][rollback: 3 edits (B)]
08:29, 11 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-37)‎ . . Shooting of Brian Moore ‎ (→‎Brian Moore)
Look, you're not going to convince me with any page history evidence. Nothing there could outweigh my experience working directly with both editors. I read people well, and faking differences of this nature and magnitude is not humanly possible. Besides, I'm not the one you need to convince.
The relationship between me and Versus001 was always a bit strained and we only barely could work together. After being very active for a long time, they have not edited since 10 Oct. They blanked their talk page after I was overly harsh with them in article talk and upset them, then came back on the 13th only to remove my apology/explanation from their user talk. Clearly, they don't like me and probably never will, even if they decide to return. Meanwhile, WS and I have been collaborating very well, have largely the same editing style and philosophy, see eye-to-eye on most issues, and get along quite well. If these are the same person, I will eat not only my hat but my shirt and pants as well.
Anyway, as long as the Versus001 account stays retired, I don't really care whether WS used to use that account. He's doing good work as WS, he's an asset to the community as WS, and that's all that matters to me.
I have nothing else to contribute here. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you said is that it is just judgment based on individual personal feelings and impressions and opinions, not a solid evidence that the two are not the same person, so I seek a third opinion or technically CU result.--Infinite0694 (Talk) 11:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no choice but to take CU's word for this. Almost done with the hat and I'll start on the shirt tomorrow. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • @Infinite0694: You've presented almost no evidence of a connection between the two accounts. Showing article intersection is not persuasive without showing how the two support each other on those articles. The two diffs you have do not show "same style". If more evidence isn't presented, this SPI will be declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three accounts are  Confirmed. All blocked and tagged. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

25 August 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

IP has three edits. Two of which are discussions on contentious AfD discussions where Parsley Man was advocating delete. One was today [9] and the other was in April [10]. Both were delete !votes when Parsley Man was advocating delete and occured 2 minutes after and 1 minute after an edit by Parsley Man respectively. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I'm sorry, that was me. Please don't ban me. Parsley Man (talk) 06:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: To me at least, it seems like Parsley has been editing while being logged out. Perhaps a warning could be given instead of the block? Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like Parsley agrees to the block, that's fine by me then. Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
SOCK), but it's fine as it seems Parsley needs his time to cool down and has said so on his talk page. Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

25 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

ParsleyMan is an admitted sock of DisuseKid [11]. Cccx11 has PM's habit of focusing on terrorism categories [12] [13], like these by PM [14] and his CU confirmed socks [15]

The IP is already an

admitted sock and was just blocked and warned for block evasion [16]
and has continued to edit on terrorism related topics after the block has expired.

This edit [17] has me assuming there are more PM/DisuseKid socks out there, but these are the ones that are easily spottable tonight. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • Note only requesting the CU on the username, not the IP, which based on past admission and behavior seems pretty likely/aware that CUs don't disclose named users and IPs. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello I do not understand why I have been flagged up for being another blocked user. I have edited articles that have a interest to me and to help in making the articles better. I have no ill intention and I hope this Investgation shows I'm just a new user and nothing more. Cccx11 (Cccx11Cccx11|talk 12;55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Cccx11 is Red X Unrelated. Closing with no further action.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

23 April 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


See [18] and [19]. Kamel stated on 22 December 2016 that he had coined the term "wikiwash(ing)" in July 2016. This was Kamel's last edit before retiring. Both Bachcell (who was not very active during Kamel's tenure, making only 106 edits in 2016) and Cyrus (whose account was created four days after Kamel's retirement) have used the term several times in the last week.[20][21][22][23][24] I think the three accounts are operated by the same person, but there's also a possibility that Bachcell and Kamel are the same person and Cyrus indepently picked up the term from Bachcell, and the timing of Cyrus's account being created is purely coincidental; the possibility that all three are unrelated seems very slim. Requesting CU to find sleepers. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All three accounts show an interest in AFDs of articles on individual incidents of "terrorism" related pages, particularly those spun out of incidents otherwise covered in
various lists of Israel-Palestine incidents. See, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallel Yaffa Ariel (Bachcell and Kamel), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahdi Satri (Bachcell and Kamel; they both also used the word "wikiwash" here), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihobbyist (Bachcell), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd R. Woodson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd R. Woodson (2nd nomination) (Bachcell), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Osman Mohamud (Bachcell), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing (Bachcell and Cyrus). Kamel specifically cited "wikiwashing" of spin-off articles on Palestine-Israel incidents in his retirement address (linked above), and both Bachcell and Cyrus used the term in this very specific sense recently (also in the diffs above). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Huh. I actually had a bunch of trouble finding this page, so I'm just leaving this comment here so this page will show up in my contribs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 May 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

See Editor Interaction Analyser, this new account seems to fit the pattern of recent mass shootings ([25] [26]) + the same (sometimes more obscure) pieces of media ([27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]) Sro23 (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Blocked and tagged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

27 April 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Call me paranoid, but I was hounded for months by a sockpuppet User:Parsley Man. More recently I was trolled and gamed by User:Cyrus the Penner. Both now blocked as puppets of DisuseKid. Who had been extremely disruptive to the project. Today I was doing some routine AfDs when I noticed a new account, User:Pediaorg, making a curt edit at an AfD I had recently edited [33]. Curious, so I looked (expecting an SPA opened by some passionate advocate in the death penalty debate) and found a pattern of hasty edits by a new account at a series of low-traffic AfDs, including a second one that I recently edited [34]. I know that this is not much to go on, but the editing pattern is so unusual (I edit at AfD regularly, and this is not the pattern of the familiar passionate new user who creates a sockpuppet to "win" a deletion debate,) teh odds of some new account happing to come upon 2 AfD that I had just edited in wildly disparate topics, and so strongly reminiscent of the editing pattern of Parsley Man and Cyrus the Penner, that I would appreciate a user check. Thank you.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC) E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Begging your indulgence here, but one of User:Parsley Man hounding patterns was to change the reflist on articles I had edited form 2 columns to one. Weird, but IP:70.95.186.49 just followed an edit of min with this: [35]. many/most of this IP's short list of lifetime edits are articles I had recently edited, all during the period User:ParselyMan/DisuseKid was hounding me [36]. The IP was both warned and briefly blcked for this behavior [37].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This: [38] shows IP70.95.186.49 showing up at a surprising number of articles that Parsley Man and I had both edited.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This: [39] shows Disuse Kid's reent sockpuppet Cyrus the Penner editing a series of articles also edited by IP70.95.186.49.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Clerk assistance requested: I blocked the IP for six months, but it looks like this page has an extra space in the title (" DisuseKid"). A clerk might want to merge this to the main SPI case. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18 November 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Same editing pattern as previous DisuseKid socks, focus on shootings, current events, and created three days after the last DisuseKid sock HastyBriar321 was blocked by Yunshui and tagged as confirmed. See similar edits to the portal namespace updating the names of pages that have been moved to prevent redirects and adding shootings/crimes: [40], [41], [42], [43].

The editor interaction analyzer also shows significant overlap for an account 3 days old with previous DisuseKid socks, and the editing behavior is very similar in terms of types of edits and how they are made. Not going into detail here for BEANS reasons, but if any admin or clerk has any questions, feel free to reach out to me. I've already DUCK blocked this, just noting it here for the record. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

22 November 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

I suspect that the Sockmaster, Disusekid, is using multiple IPs to evade a global indef block. See diffs: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49] - all edits created sequentially, the first five edits created within 22 minutes by 2 IPs, and the last one within 5 hours and 14 minutes by another IP, all between midnight and six a.m. PST. There has been little involvement with IP editors on this article, and to see six edits in a row, in quick succession by IPs, raises a red flag. Additionally, each of the 3 IPs has a similar editing and edit summary style.

Checkuser assistance is requested to see if the IP addresses have commonalities to the Sockmaster. {{u|

Talk} 07:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

  • DisuseKid has used a stable IP address for well over two years (I'm not a CU, but I'm very familiar with this case.) It Geolocates to the other side of the United States than these, so it raises doubts. At the same time, concur that the first IP is all but certain to be DisuseKid. The second has some overlaps, but the common geolocation with the first IP make it likely that this is DisuseKid in my mind. The final IP address geolocates to an entirely different area and doesn't fit the DisuseKid editing behavior at all. GeneralizationsAreBad (pinging you as you merged, sorry), I'd be comfortable blocking the first two myself and closing this, but not sure what length would be best. The stable IP has been blocked for 6 months in the past, and both of these are supposedly static. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: @TonyBallioni: Thanks for the ping. Might want to take a look at 2606:A000:ED02:A200:0:0:0:0/64 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), although it may be too big to block. GABgab 01:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Declined. We can't publicly connect IP addresses to accounts. A /64 on a residential cable ISP is usually fine to block. That's almost always a single customer; just do a sanity check, and you're good to go. Blocking a /64 won't do anything for a wireless provider like Verizon, though. You need to do pretty wide blocks against Verizon customers before they even approach being worthwhile, which is when you really need to worry about collateral damage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  IP blocked blocked the above range for 3 months. I see nothing going back through September that isn't DisuseKid, and a spot check through January suggests that no one else has used it all year. This is Time Warner Cable, so its likely residential. Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24 November 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Disusekid is using sockpuppets to evade a global indef block. All of the socks edit similar pages. The edit summary style is the same. They all edit the same portals, and the same type of diversion articles (a smokescreen to hide the socking). Please see the following diffs: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], and the edit history for the deleted article

Talk} 07:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

10 December 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Brand new user. 232 total edits. First edit was 2017-11-28 at 20:02. Latest edit is 2017-12-10 00:57. Has behaviors and knowledge that a new user does not normally have. Has the same editing patterns of DisuseKid. For instance: only uses edit summaries in mass shooting articles; making dummy edits to a high number of random articles, then making wanted edits (mostly with mass shooting articles); moves mass shooting pages; never creates a

Talk} 13:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

  • Why was a global lock not requested at the end of this investigation? Now other wikis are dealing with this account engaging in cross-wiki abuse. Please seal the door in future cases like this. Thanks, --SVTCobra (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Based on other behavioral evidence, I am positive this is DisuseKid. A check for other accounts would be useful here given the history. Also, when blocking, I’d recommend revoking TPA immediately given past abuse.TonyBallioni (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed - To confirm and to check for sleepers. Sro23 (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - Katietalk 17:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed, no obvious sleepers. Blocked, tagged, closed. Katietalk 17:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14 February 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Focus on the same articles and types of articles as DisuseKid (shootings/terrorism), also has other similar behavioral traits that I don't want to disclose for BEANS reasons. I'm personally fine DUCK blocking, but would prefer a CU to check for sleepers. If any clerk or CU needs them, I'm fine discussing off-wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Confirmed:
--
Amanda (aka DQ) 20:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

25 February 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Note fixation on mass-shooting articles and related, rare use of edit summaries, extensive activity in the portal namespace ([58] [59]) for a supposed new user, intersection with previous sockpuppets ([60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65]). Sro23 (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

06 March 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


CrispyGlover recently started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 shooting of Philadelphia police officer, An AfD on an article I created. It is an article that was heavily edited by User:Parsley Man, a name used by DisuseKid, but, more to the point, an editor who hounded me unmercifully. CrispyGlover makes a spate of edits, always including several in which he makes brief iVotes taking the opposite position of whatever comment I have have made at an AfD. He did not notify me of the AfD, despite my having advised him [66] that this is a normative courtesy the last time he nominated an article I created for AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö ISIS-related arson). Morover, the tone of his Nom of the AfD ("Another article created by an editor with a history of creating articles that reflect negatively on Muslims or Islam.") put me strongly in mind of another iterations of DisuseKid who hounded me in the past, User:Cyrus the Penner. I should also mention that CrispyGlover appeared like Athena form the head of Zeus: a mature and full-grown editor at birth, already extreemely familiar with WP rules and lingo. And that I commented on this at the time at his talk page, where I have commented several times since.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC) E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 May 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

All edits today have been undoing a mass rollback of the most recent DisuseKid sock Yawlaught (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Normally, I wouldn't think anything of it (good faith users taking ownership of sock edits is fine.) but an account that has only edited on one other day with similar edits coming out of the woodwork to reinsert a bunch of DisuseKid edits is likely someone's sock. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. You can see from these edit summaries (one by a blocked sock yesterday [67], another by EBay today [68]) that EBaylevel is editing along the exact same lines as the now-blocked User:Yawlaught using the same edit descriptions.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just heading over to point out the edits by this user. User:EBayLevel is clearly intent upon reinstating a number of edits that were reverted after the blocking of User:Yawlaught as a sock. Dekimasuよ! 20:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a slew of my edits being reverted an hour ago, all of which were related to me reverting Yawlaught yesterday.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, this isn't DisuseKid's normal MO, so it could just as likely be a copycat as it could be him. If it's a copycat with other accounts CU could help with those, if it is him and he has more sleepers out there, it could help there too. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21 September 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


I am just asking for a CU, as I suspected there might be a connection to the first possible sock listed above, and

Tell me all about it. 21:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

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 two accounts are Red X Unrelated to each other and to DisuseKid. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

30 April 2023

Pro forma, see below. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I checked Love of Corey after seeing some evidence in private connecting the account to User:Parsley Man, another blocked account of DisuseKid. Love of Corey is very  Likely DisuseKid given the technical data, and the behavioral overlap makes it certain.  Blocked and tagged. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect arrow Global lock(s) requested TheSandDoctor Talk 21:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04 November 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

This account was created on 2018-05-09, just a few days apart from DisuseKid's previous sock, Love of Corey, on 2018-05-17. This account started editing on May 20 this year, just a few weeks after Love of Corey was blocked.

Significant topic area overlap (mass shootings). Both accounts have made plenty of similar edits, for example, bypassing redirects one-at-a-time at Template:Mass shootings in the United States in the 1990s. While the edit summaries are slightly different, this is likely due to DisuseKid being a somewhat experienced sockmaster and wanting to throw off suspicion.

Both Corgi Stays and Love of Corey use the exact same phrase in their edit summary when moving pages: Per

WP:NCE: when, where, and what happened. See Love of Corey's page creations and Corgi Stays's page creations
for a comparison.

None of these is a smoking gun on its own, but I'm certain that considering all these factors together, these accounts are operated by the same person. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

EIU between Corgi Stays and Love Of Corey is a no-doubter as I see it https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Corgi+Stays&users=Love+of+Corey.   Aloha27  talk  19:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Likely via log data. That + behaviour = blocked, tagged proven, closing. firefly ( t · c ) 17:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

24 November 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Another sock registered at almost the exact same time as Corgi Stays (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose editing has picked up since they were blocked (only a few edits before the block, and there, only a couple days before the block). Same topic area (mass shootings).

Requesting CU as it appears the user might have multiple active socks given the timing overlap between this and Corgi Stays, and we'd stand a good chance at catching more. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This EIU quacks loudly to me. https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=DisuseKid&users=Severglue&users=Corgi%20Stays Regards,   Aloha27  talk  12:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

28 January 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Same interest in mass shootings. Account was registered about six years ago (around the same date as other previous socks) but only began editing soon after their previous sock Severglue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked in November.

EIA between this account and past sock Love of Corey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows significant overlap in multiple topic areas: mass shootings, 2022 United States elections, and United Kingdom parliamentary constituencies. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Clerk endorsed - Please compare to Severglue. Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - RoySmith (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed  No sleepers
    immediately visible RoySmith (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

30 January 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Sorry if I did this incorrectly, I have little experience with this protocol, but after only brief interactions with this user I am 75% sure this is this person again.

1 - Near exclusive focus on mass shootings, like the sockmaster ex ex

2 - Specific obsession with titles/redirects to titles of shootings, particularly on date/location (similar but different to the NCE stuff seen in previous cases with this user) ex ex, lots more

3 - Has a blank user page: not in and of itself a red flag, but I have never seen this person use a user page more than one line

4 - Sizeable page editing overlap, significant as this account doesn't have many edits yet [69], including edits on Blumenau school attack 200+ days apart, which is a quite obscure case even in Brazil

5 - follows previous pattern of making a bunch of edits right after the account is made, then making more edits after their last sock was banned

The grammar/writing is different, but this can probably be attributed to the fact that this person has been socking for nearly a decade at this point and knows how to disguise themself.

This account follows DisuseKid's previous patterns of behavior very similarly. Also, this is anecdotal, but I also mostly edit in this topic area, and I've witnessed several of their socks pop up on the articles I edit and then get banned for sockpuppeting (namely, User:Corgi Stays and User:Love of Corey) and the types of edits this editor makes are very similar.

If I'm being paranoid I apologize to this editor. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DisuseKid/Archive&oldid=1209187482"