FrameWave20, Sfdrag and 99.176.10.193 are the main contributors to L.A. Zombie ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article created by Sfdrag about what was at that time an unreleased film. Of the only other contributors, two of those were bots and the other two made single edits to fix formatting or template errors. The 99 IP also added links to L.A. Zombie to 5 other articles.
As this comparison of FrameWave20 and Sfdrag's edits shows, there is a great deal of overlap in editing. Although this may be dismissed as shared interest areas (i.e. gay porn) there are some unlikely overlaps such as Time Warner and 1 World Trade Center (the latter also edited by the 24 IP). Those acounts are almost solely responsible for Wolf Hudson filmography and Wolf Hudson. Note that Hudson is one of the stars of L.A. Zombie. The 24 IP has inserted references to Hudson and one of his movies, Shifting Gears: A Bisexual Transmission into numerous articles.
Benjiboi is a prolific editor of articles about gay porn movies and performers. As this comparison shows, there is significant overlap between Benjiboi, Sfdrag, and FrameWave20 in this area. This is somewhat to be expected since FrameWave20 and Sfdrag are more-or-less single purpose accounts which edit in this area. (A cynical person might assume that they are paid promoters of Wolf Hudson and/or related studios.) The overlaps between Sfdrag and Benjiboi, however, include less likely coincidences such as Sister Roma, The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, The Surreal Life, and Death of Michael Jackson.
Sister Roma is a member of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, as is Benjiboi. The article on Sister Roma was created by Sfdrag. Benjiboi was the creator of a now deleted autobiography at Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.. Benjiboi and Sfdrag uncharacteristically edited the article about female porn performer Shy Love, who just happens to be a co-star of Wolf Hudson in the aforementioned Switching Gears film.
I haven't requested a checkuser, although that may be worthwhile. Additionally, it may be interesting to view the deleted contributions of these editors for overlap.
See Defending yourself against claims.
Delicious carbunkle has been wikistalking me for several months now and this is just the latest chapter in their ongoing harassment. I invite them to reveal all their offsite activities involving me and my editing. That is the real and unfortunate story here. For the record I haven't a clue who any of the above are and likely the evidence is flimsy - I haven't even bothered to look as this latest round of accusations is just as tiresome as all their other harassment - as Delicious carbunkle has an unfortunate track record of making loud and WP:Dramatic pronouncements that on close inspection are quite hollow and tenditious at best. Note they again try to claim information as to me real world identity thus violating WP:Outing for no purpose but to fish to find things that might be. I've made thousands of edits and the only reason I also work in the gay porn is that tenditious editors, like, umm, Delicious carbunkle, do every they can to delete and marginalize this area of Wikipedia's coverage. When articles are targeted I am one of those editors who works to fix problems rather than cause them. I invite any uninvolved checkuser (and I consider Wikipedia Review editors to certainly be involved) to see what if any merit this latest round of baseless accusations hold. For anyone wishing to get at the root of Delicious carbunkles impressive devotion to wikistalking me a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#Sockpuppet accusations and likely a visit to Wikipedia Review, if the content hasn't been deleted already, will clear up where the problem here is with one of their few accurate comments about me is that I do diligently work on many LGBT articles when not trying to prevent articles on notable subjects from being deleted. -- Banjeboi 04:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The IP address edits might just be a matter of editing without signing in. I'm unclear why this investigation was requested. Are there any controversial edits involved here or is this just a matter of noting overlapping areas of interest? -- Griseum ( talk) 01:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Benjiboi, I'm sorry that my filing of this sockpuppetry case has offended you. I hope you will admit that there was sufficient overlap between your account and the other accounts listed to warrant my suspicions, and a checkuser has now stated that you do not appear to be related to those accounts so you have no reason to be concerned by this case. Perhaps it can be renamed. I ask you again to stop accusing me of harrassment and wiki-stalking unless you are doing so in the appropriate forum and backing up your claims with diffs. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 14:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
If I were involved with such an intense background of dispute with another editor, it would seem obvious to me that this SPI would be badly interpreted and could be seen as harassment. I would take care to reconsider any similar actions in the future and leave complaints against Benjiboi for other editors to contemplate. I note that the above expression of sorrow was quickly followed by a repeated compliant, which makes it appear a little hollow. Note that I have no intention of advising DC about being a better Wikipedian as s/he has already made it clear they do not appreciate my advice during previous discussion. Ash ( talk) 23:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Clerk note: Enough. SPI is not the place for bickering. We have enough drama on these pages already. Further comments by either party not directly related to the case will be reverted.
Timotheus Canens (
talk) 23:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Administrator note FrameWave20 and Sfdrag indefinitely blocked and tagged. –
MuZemike 18:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser. |
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
Per User:Schrandit's discovery as mentioned on my talk page here. There is a real possibility of socking here, as Benjiboi was also specialized in LGBT-related topics as well as issues regarding paid editing. – MuZemike 19:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Although I took care not to mention Benjiboi by name since his main account is neither blocked nor banned, they are the editor I was alluding to in these ANI reports ( [1] & [2]). These are just some of the more recent sockpuppets. In July, I was warned off a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Child protection by an ArbCom member. In a subsequent email discussion, they assured me that (a) ArbCom was aware of the identity of the user, and (b) that checkuser suggested that the editor behind the trolling was not Benjiboi. I have little doubt, however, that it was indeed Benjiboi. Perhaps ArbCom could be asked privately for their recollections of that incident.
I believe that many of the IP edits coming from the 71.139.0.0/19 range are his, but that would be something that could easily be confirmed by a checkuser and cross-reference with the accounts already identified. A few recently used IPs which I believe can be easily identified as Benjiboi are 71.139.21.148, 71.139.16.102, and 71.139.6.209. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 21:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Benji used to stalk my edits toward the end, I went through my contributions since he left. I have found highly suspicious behavior from;
- Schrandit ( talk) 07:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Uh, the list is expanding and not all are blocked ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
←Having not reviewed the CheckUser data, and simply based on the behavioral evidence I would say it is pretty likely these are socks of Benjiboi ( talk · contribs). Also, given that many of the above were previously blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wordiscount/Archive, I feel a block of Benjiboi's main account is appropriate as well. That said, I am not familiar with the specifics surrounding Benjiboi. Is there a reason his account has been unblocked all this time? Tiptoety talk 19:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
Clerk Request}}
Could a clerk please change the socks tags to reflect
Benjiboi (
talk ·
contribs) as the master? Thank you,
Tiptoety
talk 23:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)- Alison ❤ 05:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Can I just add some earlier accounts that were blocked but largely unknown;
- Alison ❤ 07:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any indication that User:Dylan Flaherty has been checked (see the comment above by Jclemens), and since there is an active AN/I discussion (and a topic ban in place) it would be nice to have the checkuser take a look at that. Horologium (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
I've had my edits stalked pretty extensively by a few people. This new user is no new user and has a particular interest in me. This user is very clearly either a bitter heart from days gone by trying to disrupt the dispute resolution process, or else it is one of the subjects of the dispute trying to disrupt the resolution process. It would be helpful to know which and if this is someone with a indef block levied against them, to discern what action should then be taken. Haymaker ( talk) 01:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Inconclusive – Since no other Spotfixer socks have been blocked or detected by anyone for almost 9 months, and there was nothing else that I saw when checking, I cannot conclude anything via CU. This will need to be determined by behavior. –
MuZemike 05:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
New SPA, very wiki-familiar, solely limited to talk page edits opposing Wikiproject conservatism. I suspect this may be someone's sockpuppet, but I don't know whom, and AGF still applies. I'm much more inclined to help spend time educating/accommodating a new user if he is actually a new user... which doesn't seem to be the case here. All I'm looking for is a sock/not an obvious sock call. Jclemens ( talk) 20:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Sheesh, again? Jack Merridew 23:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
See CheckUser results below
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
See CheckUser results below. Posting results for transparency reasons, as there are quite a few articles and deletion discussions involved. – MuZemike 03:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Could User:Lapsusjc be checked as well? It's a recently created account used only to request undeletion of an article created by an older Benjeboi sock. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 18:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The following accounts are Confirmed as
Benjiboi (
talk ·
contribs):
All socks have already been blocked and tagged, and underlying range blocked. Since this is a banned user, assistance will be needed to place heavy scrutiny on every edit made by every sock. – MuZemike 03:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
This edit is almost exactly what was done by User:Hail_of_violence with [ these edits]. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 02:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
All these accounts are editing from a proxy server. I had to rely on editing patterns for the ones above. The following account is directly Confirmed as Benjiboi:
– MuZemike 02:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
A user sent me this via email. I have not had time to review the information in full, but I'm picking out a few key points from the email. If it isn't enough, tell me and I will look into it myself further.
See this content:
The diff above is a rewritten version of Benjiboi's own content, same phrases, same links, same pix:
Cluetrainwoowoo edits much the same content as Insomesia and has a similar name to a previous sockpuppet, User:Cluetrain. NW ( Talk) 05:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Gleeanon409 and Benjiboi's areas of interest overlap considerably: drag performance, gay pornography, American reality competitions and other television shows, Z-list LGBT celebrities, hot-button social issues, etc.
Gleeanon409 takes the same approach to AfD as Benjiboi and his socks. Both are inclusionists who participate in the Article Rescue Squadron. (AfD stats: Gle Ben Ins Spo) They make very similar AfD comments:
Keep: per nominator meets GNG, the rest is clean up. Insomesia ( talk) 02:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[8]
Keep, meets GNG, the rest is clean-up issues. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 13:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[9]
Keep, easily meets GNG, the rest is clean-up which is not what AfD is for. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 09:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[10]
Gleeanon409 and Benjiboi use some of the same edit summaries: e.g., "unneeded" Gle Ben and "unhelpful"/"not helpful" . Gle Ben
Gleeanon409 and Benjiboi have the same writing style: comma splices, unexpected shifts in verb tense, and other syntax errors; an informal, somewhat sentimental tone; and lots of embedded quotations. Here are a handful of examples chosen at random:
Extended content
|
---|
|
Benjiboi has a history of questionable edits regarding children and homosexuality. See for example:
Gleeanon409 has continued Benjiboi's campaign to whitewash Harry Hay's support for NAMBLA. See Talk:Harry Hay, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 80#NAMBLA content on Harry Hay, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 270#Harry Hay lead, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive311#Would appreciate uninvolved admins help at WP:NPOVN, etc. Also, he has recently scrubbed information about pedophile advocacy from Spartacus International Gay Guide, Bruno's (German company), Albany Trust, and List of pedophile advocacy organizations.
Benjiboi and @ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: have come into conflict in the past over Benjiboi's BLP violations. In 2014, a Benjiboi sock reported Mr. Wolfowitz to ANEW for removing outdated celebrity dating news from BLPs. [20] Gleeanon409 tried bringing him to ANI a short while ago over precisely the same issue: [21].
I am requesting CheckUser: if Gleeanon409 is a sock of Benjiboi, it is likely that there are sleeper accounts.
gnu 57 06:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC) gnu 57 06:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment by Crossroads: The above evidence is compelling. I have two further lines of evidence to contribute:
Sexuality outside heteronormative and culturally acceptable limits - specifically romance involving young, sometimes very young people - usually males.(And Haiduc was later banned by ArbCom because he was POV pushing in just that way, after this ANI discussion.) Also mentioned above, this comment by Sportfan5000 is full of good things to say about NAMBLA, a pro-pedophilia and pro-pederasty group. Gleeanon409 started the discussion Talk:Rind et al. controversy#Censoring Sex Research, suggesting that Wikipedia include material based on the book Censoring Sex Research: The Debate over Male Intergenerational Relations, and talking up how "scholarly" the book is. The book promotes Bruce Rind's fringe theory that pederasty is a beneficial, evolved part of human nature. More depth can be found at the linked discussion.
Crossroads -talk- 07:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment by CorbieVreccan: I first encountered Gleeanon as an often disruptive editor on LGBT articles, frequently POV-pushing for pedophilia advocates (the Harry Hay article, others mentioned above), as well as spending a lot of time adding details to articles about children and youth performers ( Desmond Napoles, various TV performers), where he would edit war and wikilawyer to remove any critical content from child protection advocates.
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The previous Benjiboi sock, Gleeanon409, was blocked on November 9. SreySros had only 2 edits prior to that from October within 30 minutes of each other, but starting on November 19, after Gleeanon409's block, this account began editing much more frequently. Here and here SreySros talks about the recently concluded RfC about MOS:DEADNAME which was started by Gleeanon409.
The evidence is abundant that they are far too familiar with Wikipedia to be a new user. (Their supposed disclosure on their userpage of being this account with a single edit is a red herring.) Their first ever edit was to create a userpage, as socks often do to blend in. Their second edit involved the use of the extremely obscure "ARTICLEPAGENAME" template. Their 3rd-7th edits are all to userspace, even creating a userbox. About an hour later they start making comments like this one with a fancy green text template and policy shortcuts. A day later they have Twinkle installed and preferences set. Here SreySros refers to Flyer22 Frozen as just "Flyer", indicating suspicious familiarity. Especially suspicious is this edit signaling awareness of discretionary sanctions in the AP and GG topic areas despite never having been given DS notices of any kind.
CheckUser should still be run even if it is not thought that I have presented enough evidence that it is Benjiboi. The whole point of CheckUser is to uncover further evidence of abusive sockpuppetry (in other words, if I had to prove it is Benjiboi before CU is run, then CU really serves no purpose). Additionally,
WP:NOTFISHING in the CU policy is very clear that it is not fishing to check an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry, and a suspected sock-puppet's operator is sometimes unknown until a CheckUser investigation is concluded.
Crossroads
-talk- 05:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
FrameWave20, Sfdrag and 99.176.10.193 are the main contributors to L.A. Zombie ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article created by Sfdrag about what was at that time an unreleased film. Of the only other contributors, two of those were bots and the other two made single edits to fix formatting or template errors. The 99 IP also added links to L.A. Zombie to 5 other articles.
As this comparison of FrameWave20 and Sfdrag's edits shows, there is a great deal of overlap in editing. Although this may be dismissed as shared interest areas (i.e. gay porn) there are some unlikely overlaps such as Time Warner and 1 World Trade Center (the latter also edited by the 24 IP). Those acounts are almost solely responsible for Wolf Hudson filmography and Wolf Hudson. Note that Hudson is one of the stars of L.A. Zombie. The 24 IP has inserted references to Hudson and one of his movies, Shifting Gears: A Bisexual Transmission into numerous articles.
Benjiboi is a prolific editor of articles about gay porn movies and performers. As this comparison shows, there is significant overlap between Benjiboi, Sfdrag, and FrameWave20 in this area. This is somewhat to be expected since FrameWave20 and Sfdrag are more-or-less single purpose accounts which edit in this area. (A cynical person might assume that they are paid promoters of Wolf Hudson and/or related studios.) The overlaps between Sfdrag and Benjiboi, however, include less likely coincidences such as Sister Roma, The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, The Surreal Life, and Death of Michael Jackson.
Sister Roma is a member of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, as is Benjiboi. The article on Sister Roma was created by Sfdrag. Benjiboi was the creator of a now deleted autobiography at Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.. Benjiboi and Sfdrag uncharacteristically edited the article about female porn performer Shy Love, who just happens to be a co-star of Wolf Hudson in the aforementioned Switching Gears film.
I haven't requested a checkuser, although that may be worthwhile. Additionally, it may be interesting to view the deleted contributions of these editors for overlap.
See Defending yourself against claims.
Delicious carbunkle has been wikistalking me for several months now and this is just the latest chapter in their ongoing harassment. I invite them to reveal all their offsite activities involving me and my editing. That is the real and unfortunate story here. For the record I haven't a clue who any of the above are and likely the evidence is flimsy - I haven't even bothered to look as this latest round of accusations is just as tiresome as all their other harassment - as Delicious carbunkle has an unfortunate track record of making loud and WP:Dramatic pronouncements that on close inspection are quite hollow and tenditious at best. Note they again try to claim information as to me real world identity thus violating WP:Outing for no purpose but to fish to find things that might be. I've made thousands of edits and the only reason I also work in the gay porn is that tenditious editors, like, umm, Delicious carbunkle, do every they can to delete and marginalize this area of Wikipedia's coverage. When articles are targeted I am one of those editors who works to fix problems rather than cause them. I invite any uninvolved checkuser (and I consider Wikipedia Review editors to certainly be involved) to see what if any merit this latest round of baseless accusations hold. For anyone wishing to get at the root of Delicious carbunkles impressive devotion to wikistalking me a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#Sockpuppet accusations and likely a visit to Wikipedia Review, if the content hasn't been deleted already, will clear up where the problem here is with one of their few accurate comments about me is that I do diligently work on many LGBT articles when not trying to prevent articles on notable subjects from being deleted. -- Banjeboi 04:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The IP address edits might just be a matter of editing without signing in. I'm unclear why this investigation was requested. Are there any controversial edits involved here or is this just a matter of noting overlapping areas of interest? -- Griseum ( talk) 01:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Benjiboi, I'm sorry that my filing of this sockpuppetry case has offended you. I hope you will admit that there was sufficient overlap between your account and the other accounts listed to warrant my suspicions, and a checkuser has now stated that you do not appear to be related to those accounts so you have no reason to be concerned by this case. Perhaps it can be renamed. I ask you again to stop accusing me of harrassment and wiki-stalking unless you are doing so in the appropriate forum and backing up your claims with diffs. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 14:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
If I were involved with such an intense background of dispute with another editor, it would seem obvious to me that this SPI would be badly interpreted and could be seen as harassment. I would take care to reconsider any similar actions in the future and leave complaints against Benjiboi for other editors to contemplate. I note that the above expression of sorrow was quickly followed by a repeated compliant, which makes it appear a little hollow. Note that I have no intention of advising DC about being a better Wikipedian as s/he has already made it clear they do not appreciate my advice during previous discussion. Ash ( talk) 23:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Clerk note: Enough. SPI is not the place for bickering. We have enough drama on these pages already. Further comments by either party not directly related to the case will be reverted.
Timotheus Canens (
talk) 23:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Administrator note FrameWave20 and Sfdrag indefinitely blocked and tagged. –
MuZemike 18:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser. |
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
Per User:Schrandit's discovery as mentioned on my talk page here. There is a real possibility of socking here, as Benjiboi was also specialized in LGBT-related topics as well as issues regarding paid editing. – MuZemike 19:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Although I took care not to mention Benjiboi by name since his main account is neither blocked nor banned, they are the editor I was alluding to in these ANI reports ( [1] & [2]). These are just some of the more recent sockpuppets. In July, I was warned off a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Child protection by an ArbCom member. In a subsequent email discussion, they assured me that (a) ArbCom was aware of the identity of the user, and (b) that checkuser suggested that the editor behind the trolling was not Benjiboi. I have little doubt, however, that it was indeed Benjiboi. Perhaps ArbCom could be asked privately for their recollections of that incident.
I believe that many of the IP edits coming from the 71.139.0.0/19 range are his, but that would be something that could easily be confirmed by a checkuser and cross-reference with the accounts already identified. A few recently used IPs which I believe can be easily identified as Benjiboi are 71.139.21.148, 71.139.16.102, and 71.139.6.209. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 21:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Benji used to stalk my edits toward the end, I went through my contributions since he left. I have found highly suspicious behavior from;
- Schrandit ( talk) 07:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Uh, the list is expanding and not all are blocked ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
←Having not reviewed the CheckUser data, and simply based on the behavioral evidence I would say it is pretty likely these are socks of Benjiboi ( talk · contribs). Also, given that many of the above were previously blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wordiscount/Archive, I feel a block of Benjiboi's main account is appropriate as well. That said, I am not familiar with the specifics surrounding Benjiboi. Is there a reason his account has been unblocked all this time? Tiptoety talk 19:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
Clerk Request}}
Could a clerk please change the socks tags to reflect
Benjiboi (
talk ·
contribs) as the master? Thank you,
Tiptoety
talk 23:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)- Alison ❤ 05:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Can I just add some earlier accounts that were blocked but largely unknown;
- Alison ❤ 07:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any indication that User:Dylan Flaherty has been checked (see the comment above by Jclemens), and since there is an active AN/I discussion (and a topic ban in place) it would be nice to have the checkuser take a look at that. Horologium (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
I've had my edits stalked pretty extensively by a few people. This new user is no new user and has a particular interest in me. This user is very clearly either a bitter heart from days gone by trying to disrupt the dispute resolution process, or else it is one of the subjects of the dispute trying to disrupt the resolution process. It would be helpful to know which and if this is someone with a indef block levied against them, to discern what action should then be taken. Haymaker ( talk) 01:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Inconclusive – Since no other Spotfixer socks have been blocked or detected by anyone for almost 9 months, and there was nothing else that I saw when checking, I cannot conclude anything via CU. This will need to be determined by behavior. –
MuZemike 05:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
New SPA, very wiki-familiar, solely limited to talk page edits opposing Wikiproject conservatism. I suspect this may be someone's sockpuppet, but I don't know whom, and AGF still applies. I'm much more inclined to help spend time educating/accommodating a new user if he is actually a new user... which doesn't seem to be the case here. All I'm looking for is a sock/not an obvious sock call. Jclemens ( talk) 20:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Sheesh, again? Jack Merridew 23:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
See CheckUser results below
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
See CheckUser results below. Posting results for transparency reasons, as there are quite a few articles and deletion discussions involved. – MuZemike 03:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Could User:Lapsusjc be checked as well? It's a recently created account used only to request undeletion of an article created by an older Benjeboi sock. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 18:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The following accounts are Confirmed as
Benjiboi (
talk ·
contribs):
All socks have already been blocked and tagged, and underlying range blocked. Since this is a banned user, assistance will be needed to place heavy scrutiny on every edit made by every sock. – MuZemike 03:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"
This edit is almost exactly what was done by User:Hail_of_violence with [ these edits]. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 02:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
All these accounts are editing from a proxy server. I had to rely on editing patterns for the ones above. The following account is directly Confirmed as Benjiboi:
– MuZemike 02:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
A user sent me this via email. I have not had time to review the information in full, but I'm picking out a few key points from the email. If it isn't enough, tell me and I will look into it myself further.
See this content:
The diff above is a rewritten version of Benjiboi's own content, same phrases, same links, same pix:
Cluetrainwoowoo edits much the same content as Insomesia and has a similar name to a previous sockpuppet, User:Cluetrain. NW ( Talk) 05:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Gleeanon409 and Benjiboi's areas of interest overlap considerably: drag performance, gay pornography, American reality competitions and other television shows, Z-list LGBT celebrities, hot-button social issues, etc.
Gleeanon409 takes the same approach to AfD as Benjiboi and his socks. Both are inclusionists who participate in the Article Rescue Squadron. (AfD stats: Gle Ben Ins Spo) They make very similar AfD comments:
Keep: per nominator meets GNG, the rest is clean up. Insomesia ( talk) 02:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[8]
Keep, meets GNG, the rest is clean-up issues. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 13:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[9]
Keep, easily meets GNG, the rest is clean-up which is not what AfD is for. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 09:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[10]
Gleeanon409 and Benjiboi use some of the same edit summaries: e.g., "unneeded" Gle Ben and "unhelpful"/"not helpful" . Gle Ben
Gleeanon409 and Benjiboi have the same writing style: comma splices, unexpected shifts in verb tense, and other syntax errors; an informal, somewhat sentimental tone; and lots of embedded quotations. Here are a handful of examples chosen at random:
Extended content
|
---|
|
Benjiboi has a history of questionable edits regarding children and homosexuality. See for example:
Gleeanon409 has continued Benjiboi's campaign to whitewash Harry Hay's support for NAMBLA. See Talk:Harry Hay, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 80#NAMBLA content on Harry Hay, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 270#Harry Hay lead, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive311#Would appreciate uninvolved admins help at WP:NPOVN, etc. Also, he has recently scrubbed information about pedophile advocacy from Spartacus International Gay Guide, Bruno's (German company), Albany Trust, and List of pedophile advocacy organizations.
Benjiboi and @ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: have come into conflict in the past over Benjiboi's BLP violations. In 2014, a Benjiboi sock reported Mr. Wolfowitz to ANEW for removing outdated celebrity dating news from BLPs. [20] Gleeanon409 tried bringing him to ANI a short while ago over precisely the same issue: [21].
I am requesting CheckUser: if Gleeanon409 is a sock of Benjiboi, it is likely that there are sleeper accounts.
gnu 57 06:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC) gnu 57 06:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment by Crossroads: The above evidence is compelling. I have two further lines of evidence to contribute:
Sexuality outside heteronormative and culturally acceptable limits - specifically romance involving young, sometimes very young people - usually males.(And Haiduc was later banned by ArbCom because he was POV pushing in just that way, after this ANI discussion.) Also mentioned above, this comment by Sportfan5000 is full of good things to say about NAMBLA, a pro-pedophilia and pro-pederasty group. Gleeanon409 started the discussion Talk:Rind et al. controversy#Censoring Sex Research, suggesting that Wikipedia include material based on the book Censoring Sex Research: The Debate over Male Intergenerational Relations, and talking up how "scholarly" the book is. The book promotes Bruce Rind's fringe theory that pederasty is a beneficial, evolved part of human nature. More depth can be found at the linked discussion.
Crossroads -talk- 07:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment by CorbieVreccan: I first encountered Gleeanon as an often disruptive editor on LGBT articles, frequently POV-pushing for pedophilia advocates (the Harry Hay article, others mentioned above), as well as spending a lot of time adding details to articles about children and youth performers ( Desmond Napoles, various TV performers), where he would edit war and wikilawyer to remove any critical content from child protection advocates.
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The previous Benjiboi sock, Gleeanon409, was blocked on November 9. SreySros had only 2 edits prior to that from October within 30 minutes of each other, but starting on November 19, after Gleeanon409's block, this account began editing much more frequently. Here and here SreySros talks about the recently concluded RfC about MOS:DEADNAME which was started by Gleeanon409.
The evidence is abundant that they are far too familiar with Wikipedia to be a new user. (Their supposed disclosure on their userpage of being this account with a single edit is a red herring.) Their first ever edit was to create a userpage, as socks often do to blend in. Their second edit involved the use of the extremely obscure "ARTICLEPAGENAME" template. Their 3rd-7th edits are all to userspace, even creating a userbox. About an hour later they start making comments like this one with a fancy green text template and policy shortcuts. A day later they have Twinkle installed and preferences set. Here SreySros refers to Flyer22 Frozen as just "Flyer", indicating suspicious familiarity. Especially suspicious is this edit signaling awareness of discretionary sanctions in the AP and GG topic areas despite never having been given DS notices of any kind.
CheckUser should still be run even if it is not thought that I have presented enough evidence that it is Benjiboi. The whole point of CheckUser is to uncover further evidence of abusive sockpuppetry (in other words, if I had to prove it is Benjiboi before CU is run, then CU really serves no purpose). Additionally,
WP:NOTFISHING in the CU policy is very clear that it is not fishing to check an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry, and a suspected sock-puppet's operator is sometimes unknown until a CheckUser investigation is concluded.
Crossroads
-talk- 05:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.