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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
-- Banjeboi 22:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Ugh! While there is a very clear link between
Sfdrag (
talk·contribs) and
FrameWave20 (
talk·contribs), 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 Confirmed 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 Unrelated to any of the above two here. Nor is he using any other accounts, far as I can tell -
Alison❤ 04:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Ali are you saying that those two are socks of each other? Or is there a master account?
ViridaeTalk 05:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Socks of each other -
Alison❤ 05:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)reply
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?
-- Banjeboi 18:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Well the work seems done, why not close it?
-- Banjeboi 23:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Administrator note FrameWave20 and Sfdrag indefinitely blocked and tagged. –
MuZemike 18:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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;reply
Uh, the list is
expanding and not all are blocked ;) Cheers,
Jack Merridew 17:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Question: are we trying to connect Benjiboi to Wordiscount, to whom this sockfarm was previous accredited? —
HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!) 19:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Looking at some of the log data, I will say this is Likely 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.
TNXMan 19:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)reply
All the accounts above, except
User:Munijym, are already blocked. Can someone determine if Munijym is related to the rest?
OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Actually, that report says that the Munijym may be a false positive, as their edits are largely unrelated. —
HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!) 16:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Just saw that, sorry about that!
TNXMan 16:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)reply
←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?
Tiptoetytalk 19:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)reply
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)reply
- note - removed trolling attacking comment from new user.
Off2riorob (
talk) 13:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)reply
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)reply
I see no reason for Benjiboi to be left unblocked, as such I have blocked the account.
Tiptoetytalk 22:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I've historic data on the previous check & will give this a second-check later tonight -
Alison❤ 00:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)reply
I can say here that the link between
Benjiboi (
talk·contribs) and
Wordiscount (
talk·contribs) is Confirmed here. I have tech evidence from previous CU requests and ran the last one here that's archived. So - Confirmed, yes. Also the
You were warned (
talk·contribs) 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 Likely Benjiboi socks;
Clerk note: 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? —
HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!) 15:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Ok, as there's some doubt over that one, let's leave
Munijym (
talk·contribs) 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 -
Alison❤ 06:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Oh, and all the other redlinked accounts above are Stale except for
Ianharviemgmt (
talk·contribs), which is Unrelated -
Alison❤ 06:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Marking Checked as CUs have looked at it. --
DQ (t) (e) 13:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Checkuser is not for fishing. Could you give us at least a list of people who you think it might be? —
HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!) 01:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)reply
Number 1 contender would be
User:Spotfixer over the course of the last few years she has created
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)reply
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)reply
Additional information needed - 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)reply
Clerk endorsed - 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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Alright. Feel free to relist if there are any new developments. —
HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!) 14:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Please note that CeeAyah has an SPI case page that probably needs to point to Benjiboi.
TNXMan 21:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Administrator note Alright. I've merged the cases to Benjiboi, and I've blocked and tagged everyone. —
HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!) 21:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)reply
For the record, I'm reinstating the block Alison put down in December on 71.139.0.0/18.
TNXMan 21:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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:
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.
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)reply
Clerk endorsed - To check for possible sleepers, if nothing else. —
Richwales(no relation to Jimbo) 07:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Check declined by a checkuser - 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)reply
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:
GleBenInsSpo) 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"
GleBen and "unhelpful"/"not helpful" .
GleBen
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 and socks:
The nine-minute long video consisted of the three stating what girls should be in order to attract guys, including criticizing physical aspects they don't like, the video was up for five days where it "gathered major backlash over what many viewers felt were the boys’ reinforcement of horrible beauty and behavioral standards in young women who already battle with low self-esteem."
He has had a lifelong passion for designing, as a child he "took on decorating the family home." [...] His mother knew he was gay at a very young age and embraced his uniqueness and allowed him to be creative.
Right before interviewing for the position with BET, Nipper was diagnosed with
breast cancer, she hesitated about going for the interview but decided she had to live her life as fully as possible, she also found out she had
HER2/neu, a gene that has been shown to play an important role in the development and progression of certain aggressive types of breast cancer.
He knew he was gay since high school, and even bartender in a
gay bar. There had been rumors but he had avoided them, and gay publications like Instinct up to then.
When he was six, the family saw a therapist concerned that letting him wear dresses was okay, they were told not to force the issue either way but “to let it happen naturally.”
Her friend Bevy Smith told her to look behind, and she saw Barack Obama dancing along with her, later stating in the moment she felt uniquely validated as a Black gay man by the “most famous Black man in the world”.
The brutal war, which lasted from 1964 to 1973, was the first major time
veterans returned not as a unit but individually, without parades celebrating victory as it was “the first major lost war abroad in American history”. [...] After her discharge she moved to San Francisco, she adopted her name Soni S.H.S. Wolf while in the military, it was used to identify her on her discharge papers.
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.
gnu57 06:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
gnu57 06:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Oshwah: 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.
gnu57 17:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment by Crossroads: The above evidence is compelling. I have two further lines of evidence to contribute:
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#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.
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)reply
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)reply
Clerk note: 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 Blocked but awaiting tags, requesting CU for a sleeper check.
GeneralNotability (
talk) 20:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)reply
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)reply
There don't seem to be multiple people using the account, but there's no easy way to rule that out. No sleepers
immediately visible.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 21:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)reply
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)reply