Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ben swarbrick/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

John creates the LW draft (previously deleted as spam when the "master" created it after declaring their COI, while Burton uploads the photos. Fishy despite the COI declaration and especially given the numbering/naming convention. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:23, 17 January 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

 * Converting this to a CU request. I think there is enough to block on here behaviorally, but given the name patterns and the COI declaration, there is a possibility that this is part of a larger family and the declared account is the good hand. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. No other accounts seen., closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * (original master)


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

For Ben swarbrick, per similar name. For both, per similar interest and past edits on pages listed in Articles for deletion/Louis Wright (digital operator), particularly and those listed in 's comment of 16:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC): , , , , and. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  18:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am looking for an ""SPI stamp of approval" for db-banned-tagging and rollbacking their current account's works. Sometimes, "following process for the sake of being seen to follow process" is important, it sends the message "Wikipedia will treat you fairly."  I think this is one of those cases.  I must admit, thinking about this, that I'm feeling a bit "used" by them in the WP:AGF department and therefore my judgment is no longer objective.  Because of that, I may be "over-correcting." davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  18:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "There is no "official stamp of approval"" - my mistake, go ahead and close this, I've opened a general question about WP:BMB and WP:G5 on WT:SPI. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs) 🎄  18:38, 13 December 2020 (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

 * they're both already indeffed, what are you looking for here? Praxidicae (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no "official stamp of approval", the past accounts are stale, so beyond confirming two obvious socks together, there's no point. There is no need for that level of bureaucracy to revert/remove content by long blocked sockmasters, especially since there's no doubt about the content itself and they've not edited much outside of their spam target...Praxidicae (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ben swarbrick is the master,
 * User account was created
 * User account was created
 * User account was created by  (cannot access the other account)
 * User account was created
 * and the block evasion is also ongoing:
 * User account was created by  (First account)
 * G5 date - Oldest indef is Benswarbricks23, indeffed on 20180117210556.
 * -- Cabayi (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * (re-)blocked, (re-)tagged, nothing more to do, closing. Cabayi (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)