Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BenjaminHomerBoyd/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Fightdapower is clearly a experienced user. This account was created purely to comment at an afd, Articles for deletion/Mere Oblivion. 3 of their first 4 (and only) edits were to turn redlinks blue,. Makes the signature look more like an established editor. An administrator (User:Lourdes) also was solidly of the opinion that this was an experienced editor, commenting "You obviously know how to request for an unblock". Given this and the nature of their comment this user is clearly a disruptive sockpuppet of someone. WP:ILLEGIT - Creating an illusion of support, Avoiding scrutiny and possibly Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts.

Their afd comment was at an afd for four films created by Burleigh Smith. The most recent of these articles was created by BenjaminHomerBoyd. (the others being created by Rufusco99 and SephHaroldson, see below). The article on the director is curently curated by BenjaminHomerBoyd.

BenjaminHomerBoyd is a SPA dedicated to the promotion of Smith and the film industry he works in. He follows on from a series of previous SPAs dedicated to the same. User:Burleighsmith, User:SephHaroldson , User:Rufusco99 , User:Anupstartcrow and some ips, eg ,  and.

In their afd comment they dished out a personal attacks alleging bias and told an editor to refrain from contributing, "your staggering bias", "refrain from further disruptive contributions".

BenjaminHomerBoyd has an identical inclination to also dish out personal attacks alleging bias and telling editors to refrain from contributing. "I suspect the matter may be personal for Meticulo" "Respectfully request he refrain from such unhelpful editing". "the matter must be an overly personal one for you" "withdraw from this discussion". "demonstrated a staggering bias against this director" "contributor is clearly intent on being disruptive" "he should not have any further input to this discussion". "your pattern of behaviour and complete inability to be objective here suggests you have an axe to grind" "you should abstain from any further contributions to this discussion". Two of these were to the same afd as above. (Note the repeat of "your staggering bias")

We have a history of SPAs dedicated to Smith, the latest of which is a disruptive sock. Given this and the similarities in comments it is highly probable that the two accounts are the same editor. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I am not this user. I see you have used the words "staggering bias" too, on the Talk Page for Burleigh Smith. By that logic, shouldn't we include you on the list of suspected sock puppets to investigate? I am most concerned. BenjaminHomerBoyd (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Further, the individual who has instigated this investigation has done so to stifle discussion on various pages. I ask that those reviewing the matter take this into consideration and do not allow the user to abuse Wikipedia in this way. Thank you. BenjaminHomerBoyd (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Suspected sock has been blocked indefinitely on an unrelated matter. -- The SandDoctor Talk 14:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Cabayi (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - Looks like BHB's afdsock. Please confirm. Cabayi (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - They're both in the same geographical location, but their technical details don't match. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - A CU confirmation would have been great but the behavioural evidence is clear enough. A 4 day (to the end of the AFD) block for the master please. Cabayi (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I re-checked the accounts and agree with 's findings, but I will add that some details of the check suggest to me that these two accounts are . I don't see the justification for a block here based on the behaviour, and based on technical results I'm leaning toward assuming good faith. Could you elaborate? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , what I see is clear WP:AFDSOCK behaviour from Fightdapower in support of BHB. Cabayi (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The sock is indefinitely blocked. The AFD has run its course. Nothing left to do. Cabayi (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)