Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DisuseKid/Archive

15 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Here are the parallels:
 * Versus001 and Warner Sun edit very similarly using the same style on Chivalry of a Failed Knight, such as.
 * This user appears on the same page:
 * Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting
 * 2015 Lafayette shooting
 * 2015 Washington, D.C., mass murder
 * Richmond Hill explosion
 * List of Fate/stay night: Unlimited Blade Works episodes
 * List of Fate/Zero episodes
 * 2014 Isla Vista killings
 * Charlotte (anime) and more... Infinite0694 (Talk) 02:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2015 Parramatta shooting
 * 2014 Isla Vista killings
 * 2012 Aurora shooting
 * The Visit (2015 film)
 * Charleston church shooting -Add-- Infinite0694 (Talk) 03:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If you say so, you need to show a large difference between Versus001 and Warner Sun. The reason I suspected Special:Contributions/Warner Sun to be a sockpuppet of Versus001 is that the two edit on Chivalry of a Failed Knight, which is minor article, immediately after the TV show were on the air. And the two are currently engaged in an edit war.-- Infinite0694 (Talk) 04:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand what you want to say, but the article intersection seems more than mere coincidence. Here's some more differences of the two: (He removed Bold text )-- Infinite0694 (Talk) 05:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC) EDIT:-- Infinite0694 (Talk) 08:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sample:

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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * 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)
 * The three accounts are ✅. All blocked and tagged. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

IP has three edits. Two of which are discussions on contentious AfD discussions where Parsley Man was advocating delete. One was today and the other was in April. 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * Seems like Parsley agrees to the block, that's fine by me then. Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That wasn't really what I was referring to (I know that he violated 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)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * It is impossible to prove anything here as there are just two overlapping edits. May be јust coincidence. I'm closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that this happened on more than one occasion, and was only admitted once confronted with the evidence, I've blocked Parsley Man for one week for the sock violation.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They were logging out purposefully to double vote in AfDs. That's very much contrary to WP:SOCK.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

ParsleyMan is an admitted sock of DisuseKid. Cccx11 has PM's habit of focusing on terrorism categories, like these by PM  and his CU confirmed socks

The IP is already an admitted sock and was just blocked and warned for block evasion  and has continued to edit on terrorism related topics after the block has expired.

This edit 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)

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)
 * 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 ❌. Closing with no further action.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

See and. 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. 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)
 * 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 Articles for deletion/Hallel Yaffa Ariel (Bachcell and Kamel), Articles for deletion/Mahdi Satri (Bachcell and Kamel; they both also used the word "wikiwash" here), Articles for deletion/Jihobbyist (Bachcell), Articles for deletion/Lloyd R. Woodson and Articles for deletion/Lloyd R. Woodson (2nd nomination) (Bachcell), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Osman Mohamud (Bachcell), and 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)
 * 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)

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 three accounts are ❌.
 * The following accounts are ✅ to :
 * I've blocked and tagged the three confirmed accounts. Please merge this case with Sockpuppet investigations/DisuseKid.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, merged from Sockpuppet investigations/Bachcell. Closing. GABgab 16:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged the three confirmed accounts. Please merge this case with Sockpuppet investigations/DisuseKid.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, merged from Sockpuppet investigations/Bachcell. Closing. GABgab 16:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, merged from Sockpuppet investigations/Bachcell. Closing. GABgab 16:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

See Editor Interaction Analyser, this new account seems to fit the pattern of recent mass shootings + the same (sometimes more obscure) pieces of media  Sro23 (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Note to clerk: Sockpuppet investigations/Parsley Man should probably be merged. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also Sockpuppet investigations/ DisuseKid (note the extra space). Sro23 (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

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. 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. 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)

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:. 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. The IP was both warned and briefly blcked for this behavior .E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This: 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)
 * This: 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)

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 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)
 * ✅  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

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: ,, ,.

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)

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

 * , closed per above. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I suspect that the Sockmaster, Disusekid, is using multiple IPs to evade a global indef block. See diffs:, , , , , - 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. 07:54, 22 November 2017 (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

 * 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. (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)
 * Thanks for the ping. Might want to take a look at, although it may be too big to block. GABgab 01:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

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:, , , , , , , , and the edit history for the deleted article 2013 Santa Cruz shooting and its deletion discussion here. 07:06, 24 November 2017 (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

 * Alba Yukon is obvious enough to me to duck block regardless of technical information, so they are . I'm changing this to a CU request on the other two: there is some overlap, but not close enough for me to feel comfortable with a duck block at this time. For the CUs the actual archive is at Sockpuppet investigations/DisuseKid/Archive. can an admin clerk please move/merge this with the correct title (caps on Kid). TonyBallioni (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. GABgab 22:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Unknown4321unknown is ❌. BayAreaWiki is leaning toward, but I can't totally rule it out.  Confirmed socks are blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing. Not enough behavioral overlap combined with the unrelated and unlikely findings mean that there isn't a justification for a block on the other two accounts. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Unknown4321unknown is ❌. BayAreaWiki is leaning toward, but I can't totally rule it out.  Confirmed socks are blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing. Not enough behavioral overlap combined with the unrelated and unlikely findings mean that there isn't a justification for a block on the other two accounts. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Unknown4321unknown is ❌. BayAreaWiki is leaning toward, but I can't totally rule it out.  Confirmed socks are blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing. Not enough behavioral overlap combined with the unrelated and unlikely findings mean that there isn't a justification for a block on the other two accounts. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Unknown4321unknown is ❌. BayAreaWiki is leaning toward, but I can't totally rule it out.  Confirmed socks are blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing. Not enough behavioral overlap combined with the unrelated and unlikely findings mean that there isn't a justification for a block on the other two accounts. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing. Not enough behavioral overlap combined with the unrelated and unlikely findings mean that there isn't a justification for a block on the other two accounts. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

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 user page; does not like whitespace in article: will make an edit solely to remove whitespace. Top edited pages: 18 edits: 2017 Las Vegas shooting, 5 edits: Rancho Tehama Reserve shootings, 4 edits: Aztec High School, 4 edits: Aztec High School shooting, which are all favorites of DisuseKid sockpuppets. 13:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * - To confirm and to check for sleepers. Sro23 (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - Katietalk 17:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, no obvious sleepers. Blocked, tagged, closed. Katietalk 17:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

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)

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

 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 20:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 20:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 20:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 20:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 20:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 20:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 20:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 20:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 20:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * , closing TonyBallioni (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Note fixation on mass-shooting articles and related, rare use of edit summaries, extensive activity in the portal namespace for a supposed new user, intersection with previous sockpuppets. Sro23 (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2018 (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

 * Blocked, obvious DisuseKid is obvious., I'm making this a CU request because odds are he has sleepers and autoblock is always triggered at least once (and sometimes multiple times), after I block him. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * - Please look for sleepers. Sro23 (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ to .  is on the same network and has an interest in shooters.  I'll block him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

CrispyGlover recently started 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 that this is a normative courtesy the last time he nominated an article I created for AfD (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)

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 think there is enough for a CU request here (the focus on deleting articles about attacks created by EMG), but I am not seeing enough to DUCK block, and I'm very familiar with DisuseKid's style. I would be skeptical it is the same, based on the fact that we had a previous CU when this account wasn't stale, but I think there would be enough for a block if the technical evidence was possilikely or above. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * . I'm running the check because of your familiarity with the behavior of the master. The filer has presented no evidence to support a CU or anything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * CrispyGlover is ❌ to DisuseKid.
 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other:
 * . Too many socks and too much deception for too long not to block the master indefinitely. Disappointing. Please create a new case with Rockypedia as the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ closing. Sro23 (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * . Too many socks and too much deception for too long not to block the master indefinitely. Disappointing. Please create a new case with Rockypedia as the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ closing. Sro23 (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * . Too many socks and too much deception for too long not to block the master indefinitely. Disappointing. Please create a new case with Rockypedia as the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ closing. Sro23 (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * . Too many socks and too much deception for too long not to block the master indefinitely. Disappointing. Please create a new case with Rockypedia as the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ closing. Sro23 (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * . Too many socks and too much deception for too long not to block the master indefinitely. Disappointing. Please create a new case with Rockypedia as the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ closing. Sro23 (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ closing. Sro23 (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

All edits today have been undoing a mass rollback of the most recent DisuseKid sock

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)

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, another by EBay today ) 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅, and all of these are ✅:
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Tagging and closing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I am just asking for a CU, as I suspected there might be a connection to the first possible sock listed above, and opined that this might be another sock of DisuseKid (who I am wholly unfamiliar with). I dunno if my suspicions are enough to justify a CU, but I figured it'd be better to open this just in case than not and possibly have to deal with the socks, anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  21:48, 21 September 2018 (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 two accounts are ❌ to each other and to DisuseKid. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

30 April 2023



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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

 * 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 DisuseKid given the technical data, and the behavioral overlap makes it certain. . Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The SandDoctor Talk 21:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

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: 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 &#124; contribs) 17:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

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

Suspected sockpuppets
Another sock registered at almost the exact same time as 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 &#124; contribs) 02:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * from the archive
 * from the archive
 * no TPA given the history of abuse. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * from the archive
 * no TPA given the history of abuse. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * no TPA given the history of abuse. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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 was blocked in November.

EIA between this account and past sock shows significant overlap in multiple topic areas: mass shootings, 2022 United States elections, and United Kingdom parliamentary constituencies. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:58, 28 January 2024 (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

 * - Please compare to Severglue. Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * - RoySmith (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ RoySmith (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

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, 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)

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

 * CU says ❌ RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)