Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benjiboi/Archive

Evidence submitted by Delicious carbuncle
FrameWave20, Sfdrag and 99.176.10.193 are the main contributors to, 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.

Comments by accused parties
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 Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive571 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. -- Banj e b oi   04:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
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)
 * The IP edits may well be as you suggest. The now confirmed sockpuppetry by the FrameWave20 and Sfdrag accounts appeared to me to be an obvious attempt to avoid scrutiny in what I would suggest are promotional edits. They have edited since I posted the notification of this case on their talk pages, so I doubt they will be showing up here to speak for themselves. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:41, 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)
 * I really don't see it actually, there is much more overlap on quite a few other articles with other editors but again you seem to just be inventing your own narrative of who you think I am and why I edit here rather than showing any actual problems exist. You cite Shy Love above which did peak my curiosity. My involvement there? Looks like I did one vandal rollback. The evidence of your harassment is easily found spread across multiple admin boards and to stop any questioning of your motives you simply need to leave me, and likely anyone else alone. Hint: if experienced editors keep pointing out an issue, and you avoid any direct answer to dispute those concerns there likely is something to their concerns. You keep repeating and insinuating old and answered accusations against me which have been answered and otherwise resolved. I will formally again ask that you leave me alone altogether, you seem eager to provoke and there is little excuse except you enjoy doing so. Move on and find something that doesn't cause drama and disruption. -- Banj e  b oi   22:46, 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, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Ugh! While there is a very clear link between and, I'm not seeing a clear link between these and Benjiboi. However, I checked the two obvious SPA accounts and can say that the following are ✅ as being socks of the one editor;




 * And while I'm not seeing a whole lot of evidence to implicate Benjiboi in this, I checked his account too (largely as he'd a history of socking) and I can state that his account is ❌ to any of the above two here. Nor is he using any other accounts, far as I can tell - A l is o n  ❤ 04:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ali are you saying that those two are socks of each other? Or is there a master account? Viridae Talk 05:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Socks of each other - A l is o n  ❤ 05:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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)
 * Could you explain exactly what "largely as he'd a history of socking" means? Did you mean exactly the opposite as I don't use socks? -- Banj e  b oi   18:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the work seems done, why not close it? -- Banj e  b oi   23:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

FrameWave20 and Sfdrag indefinitely blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 18:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

03 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''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)

Comments by other users
''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 ( & ). 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;
 * 71.62.91.3,
 * 71.112.16.44
 * 71.113.245.47
 * 71.139.7.28
 * 71.139.19.85
 * 71.139.29.193
 * 71.139.38.122
 * 71.139.4.167

-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)


 * Got another behavioral hit today: Wikistalk with User:Dylan Flaherty. Granted, a lot of these articles are within a reasonable topic range that's far from Unique to Benjiboi, but the combination of signature style, topics (including the non-LGBT ones), and non-article space (including a LOT of overlapping talk pages) twigs me that this user is either Benjiboi or someone with a lot of the same interests. Jclemens (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The account creation date is in line with the pattern. I'm sure a CU would sort things out. - Schrandit (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to note, the potential issue with User:Dylan Flaherty has been actively discussed at wp:an/i. jæs (talk)  22:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Question: are we trying to connect Benjiboi to Wordiscount, to whom this sockfarm was previous accredited? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is correct. Looks like another CU may be able to tell us something here, despite the fact that Benjiboi is way stale (which was why I did not request CU from the beginning). –MuZemike 19:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at some of the log data, I will say this is Benjiboi. I would, however, welcome further review. MuZemike, some poking through the CU log for "Benjiboi" should illustrate it. Obviously, I can't mention go into specifics here, but I should be around later tonight for further confirmation.  TN X Man  19:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All the accounts above, except User:Munijym, are already blocked. Can someone determine if Munijym is related to the rest? OhanaUnitedTalk page</b> 06:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Per this investigation, they appear to be a confirmed sock. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  16:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, that report says that the Munijym may be a false positive, as their edits are largely unrelated. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just saw that, sorry about that! TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  16:06, 4 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. Also, given that many of the above were previously blocked per 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)
 * Near as I can tell the account was not blocked because by the time this became evident he had stopped editing. - Schrandit (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * - note - removed trolling attacking comment from new user. Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Johnny your first edit is this comment, how did you know how to use this page? (another trouble maker making an account just to troll the sock puppet boards?) --Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for Benjiboi to be left unblocked, as such I have blocked the account. Tiptoety  talk 22:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've historic data on the previous check & will give this a second-check later tonight - A l is o n  ❤ 00:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Could a clerk please change the socks tags to reflect as the master? Thank you,  Tiptoety  talk 23:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I can say here that the link between and  is ✅ here. I have tech evidence from previous CU requests and ran the last one here that's archived. So - ✅, yes. Also the  account. Per checkuser policy, I'm also stating here that the IP range 71.139.0.0/18 has been extensively abused, both as an anon editor (like here, here and here just for some examples) and via sock accounts. I'm also naming the following accounts as  Benjiboi socks;


 * - previously accused
 * - previously accused
 * - previously accused

- A l is o n  ❤ 05:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I just add some earlier accounts that were blocked but largely unknown;



- A l is o n  ❤ 07:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So, rangeblock? - Schrandit (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I updated all the tags to reflect Benjiboi. As to Munijym, that had been previously discussed as being a false positive; are we now saying that it actually is a sock? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, as there's some doubt over that one, let's leave out. As Benjiboi has since been back editing as an anon,  I've applied a month-long softblock to the IP range 71.139.0.0/18 -  A l is o n  ❤ 06:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and all the other redlinked accounts above are except for, which is ❌ -  A l is o n  ❤ 06:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Marking Checked as CUs have looked at it. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  13:00, 17 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)
 * It would help. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * is ❌ to any of the accounts here and, to my knowledge, is not abusing WP:SOCK in any way - A l is o n  ❤ 18:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy news, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

29 January 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''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)

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

 * Could you give us at least a list of people who you think it might be? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Number 1 contender would be User:Spotfixer over the course of the last few years she has created |a swarm of socks, many of whom have exhibited similar behavior.
 * User:Benjiboi has also exhibited some similar behavior in his past socking. - Haymaker (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Another possible master would be one of the parties involved in the dispute resolution process but I would put my money on one of the 2 indef blocked/banned users. - Haymaker (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * - Although this is probally not a new user, I'm not willing to ask a checkuser to run a check on those two diffs. I will not swift through the load of 106 possible (+/- 5) socks. Diffs that connect some of these socks pls? -- DQ  (t)   (e)  00:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 9 months ago a spotfixer sock named NotAmyFuller did the exact same thing on the exact same board. - Haymaker (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * - With that, I would like to request a check to see who is the master, if possible to determine (w/ stale socks and everything) a master/other socks. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  00:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

– 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)
 * Too bad, it has been a while I suppose. Though I do so despite a lack of resolution unless posts like these keep popping up I'm inclined to let sleeping dogs lay. - Haymaker (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright. Feel free to relist if there are any new developments. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This case was merged into Benjiboi from Sockpuppet investigations/CeeAyah/Archive. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

18 February 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''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)

Comments by other users
''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)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Hmm.. could be or . —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears to be Benjiboi. The following accounts, based on technical data and edits are matches:
 * Please note that CeeAyah has an SPI case page that probably needs to point to Benjiboi. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  21:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. I've merged the cases to Benjiboi, and I've blocked and tagged everyone. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm reinstating the block Alison put down in December on 71.139.0.0/18. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  21:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that CeeAyah has an SPI case page that probably needs to point to Benjiboi. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  21:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. I've merged the cases to Benjiboi, and I've blocked and tagged everyone. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm reinstating the block Alison put down in December on 71.139.0.0/18. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  21:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that CeeAyah has an SPI case page that probably needs to point to Benjiboi. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  21:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. I've merged the cases to Benjiboi, and I've blocked and tagged everyone. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm reinstating the block Alison put down in December on 71.139.0.0/18. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  21:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that CeeAyah has an SPI case page that probably needs to point to Benjiboi. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  21:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. I've merged the cases to Benjiboi, and I've blocked and tagged everyone. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm reinstating the block Alison put down in December on 71.139.0.0/18. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  21:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that CeeAyah has an SPI case page that probably needs to point to Benjiboi. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  21:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. I've merged the cases to Benjiboi, and I've blocked and tagged everyone. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm reinstating the block Alison put down in December on 71.139.0.0/18. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  21:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. I've merged the cases to Benjiboi, and I've blocked and tagged everyone. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm reinstating the block Alison put down in December on 71.139.0.0/18. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  21:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

05 May 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets

See CheckUser results below


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''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)

Comments by other users
''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)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The following accounts are ✅ as :


 * ✅ Reverted a few problematic edits. --  At am a  頭 19:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ No edits. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  16:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ No problematic edits. &mdash;Off2riorob (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Problematic edits reverted. --  At am a  頭 19:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ No problematic edits. &mdash;Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Already Reverted. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  17:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Already reverted. --  At am a  頭 19:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ No edits. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  16:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ No problematic edits. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  17:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ No problematic edits. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  17:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ No problematic edits. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ No problematic edits. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ No problematic edits. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ No problematic edits. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ No edits. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  16:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Many problematic edits, all reverted. --  At am a  頭 18:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ No problematic edits. --  At am a  頭 18:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ No problematic edits. --  At am a  頭 18:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ No problematic edits. --  At am a  頭 17:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ No problematic edits. --  At am a  頭 17:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ No problematic edits. --  At am a  頭 17:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ A few problematic edits that were already reverted. --  At am a  頭 17:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * Started to mark what has been looked at, if anyone else looks, please note it so we aren't double checking each other. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  16:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well done, guys. Closing. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

09 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''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)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * User:Cluetrain made a major, problematic edit in deleting a great deal of content from the Larry Norman article and creating Later life and career of Larry Norman in an effort to artificially reduce the article's size. It may be difficult to revert. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Compassion is in fashion is very likely to be Benjiboi. The bulk of their edits were trollish deletion noms of an article I created. I guess I owe user:BlackNYer an apology for secretly suspecting them of being a Benjiboi sock. ;) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Let's do a sleeper check just in case. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  02:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

match as each other:



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 ✅ as Benjiboi:



–MuZemike 02:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged the big list there. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Any chance those proxies can be blocked? - Haymaker (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * April 2012**: See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Benjiboi&action=history / Benjiboi is back as 203.118.187.57

05 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

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:
 * 
 * 


 * Compare the paragraphs removed in vs.

Cluetrainwoowoo edits much the same content as Insomesia and has a similar name to a previous sockpuppet, User:Cluetrain. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 05:54, 5 March 2013 (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

 * - To check for possible sleepers, if nothing else. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * - Alison already blocked the first one, and cross comparing, there is a significat difference in edit times, edit summary usage, and with no direct evidence against the user, i'm not convinced a check is appropriate yet. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  10:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing as CU appears done with case, finding behavioral differences. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

19 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

-- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:54, 19 December 2014 (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

 * ✅ to Benjiboi:
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * All accounts have been blocked and tagged. Mike V  •  Talk  06:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

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)
 * Keep, meets GNG, the rest is clean-up issues. Sportfan5000 (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, easily meets GNG, the rest is clean-up which is not what AfD is for. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

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:


 * Benjiboi and socks:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Gleeanon409:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

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, Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 80, Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 270, Administrators' noticeboard/Archive311, 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.
 * this comment defending NAMBLA and these edits to Harry Hay
 * his contributions to Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell (4th nomination) (an article about the fringe theory that the founder of the boy scouts was attracted to boys and young men)
 * this comment defending Haiduc (an editor later banned by Arbcom).

Benjiboi and 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. Gleeanon409 tried bringing him to ANI a short while ago over precisely the same issue:.

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)
 * Yes, I know that there wouldn't be technical evidence connecting Benjiboi to Gleeanon409; but I am requesting CU because Benjiboi was known for creating flotillas of sleeper accounts. gnu 57 17:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Crossroads: The above evidence is compelling. I have two further lines of evidence to contribute:
 * Activity on lists of animal homosexual behavior: Gleeanon409, like Benjiboi and proven sock Insomesia, edits the articles List of animals displaying homosexual behavior (last 500 edits), List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior (full history), and List of birds displaying homosexual behavior (full history); the first had heavy input from Benjiboi and the latter two were created by Benjiboi. Both Gleeanon409 and Benjiboi use the edit summary "rvv". Gleeanon409 using "rvv": etc. Benjiboi using "rvv":
 * Sympathy toward the same fringe views: Gleeanon409, like Benjiboi and proven sock Sportfan5000, has exhibited sympathy toward fringe views of pederasty, the sexual abuse of a pubescent boy by an adult man. As noted above, here Benjiboi defends Haiduc against accusations of POV pushing for pederasty, well aware that Haiduc edits about 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, 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.
 * From the beginning, I suspected he was a sock, due to his edit history.


 * March 23, 2019 User account Gleeanon409 was created
 * March 23, 2019 Five minor edits and then:
 * On 6th edit with Gleeanon409 account, adds a paragraph full of wikilinks and sourcing, using a custom citation template, including an archived url and the wayback machine.diff
 * Then proceeds to edit so prolifically, round the clock, that I at times have wondered if more than one person is running the account. I am not familiar with the sockmaster here, and am still reviewing the many socks in the drawer, but I have never believed that Gleeanon409 is this user's first or only account. Due to the pedophilia focus, I have assumed he was blocked for that POV pushing and this is a block evasion. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:54, 9 November 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

 * All of the previously-blocked accounts in the archive are many years old. CheckUser data isn't going to pull up any results that can be compared.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Moved to relist following Oshwah's decline. They're correct that there won't be anything in the archives, but I agree with the filer and other commenters that this appears to be Benjiboi; the sheer quantity of article overlap, shared POV, and similarities in writing style are compelling to me. There are a few noticeable differences in edit summary style, but they're close enough that I think the differences can be explained by six years of time going by. Gleeanon is, requesting CU for a sleeper check. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, CU: could you check whether there are any indications that multiple people are operating Gleeanon409? Their XTools timecard is very evenly distributed, to a point that suggests either a downright bizarre sleep schedule or multiple operators GeneralNotability (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There don't seem to be multiple people using the account, but there's no easy way to rule that out. . NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The previous Benjiboi sock,, 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 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)

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

 * - Mz7 (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * SreySros is ❌ to Gleeanon409. In fact, the only account that came up on CU was the account, which SreySros has declared was theirs. While I understand the suspicion, at this time I don't think there is sufficient evidence to conclude sockpuppetry. For this reason, I am closing this SPI case without action. Mz7 (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)