Bamanh27

Bamanh27 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
19 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Bamanh27 created the article Laura Stack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which apparently is a paid for article. Bamanh27 then removed the COI tag placed on it by another editor. When the COI tag was re-added, DME2010, Cottreda and Pcola30 all removed it again at least once each. Their edit summaries are quite similar to each other. On Talk:Laura Stack where they are defending the removal of the tag, all of them except Bamanh27 use an unusual style of formatting (replies indented but signatures not). Bamanh27 has very few edits outside this topic, the others have no edits outside this topic. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add - Pcola30 has also been removing a COI tag from National Speakers Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which Bamanh27 created. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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

It seems that all of four of these named accounts are Red X Unrelated to each other. TNXMan 17:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

29 May 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence is external to Wikipedia (it's on Elance), so I'm unsure if it's reliable. In June 2011 an Elance contractor was hired to create a page for Sahpreem A. King. That page was created by User:Bamanh27 in July. The same Elance contractor was hired again to create a page for Jon Gordon. This page was created by User:SunLover77, which is a new account created on the same day as the article was. I brought this issue to WP:ANI and a user recommended I request a SPI for sockpuppets and sleepers. LawrenceDuncan (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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
17 August 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Bamanh27 was blocked for misuse of accounts after it was found that the user was employing them to create and protect articles sourced from Elance. The same Elance user has continued to accept contracts to create articles on WP, and has been paid for the work, so unfortunately it seems that he has been contining to edit here. The target articles for four of those new (post block) contracts were:

The articles were created by: OrganizedGuy ([1]); 2012BizStudent ([2]); and RonnieSoftball48 ([3], [4]), and they are the sole significant editors of the four articles. Thus they look pretty certain to be the socks that were used.

In addition, there were three more WP contracts that I was unable to identify, and a possibility of a couple more. As he seems to be generally using one account per contract, I guess that means that there may be at least three more accounts floating around.

Due to the risk of outing, I can't pass along the off-wiki links here, but if needed I have them to send to a checkuser. Bilby (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent an email. :) As mentioned there, this is a bit tricky, as a real name was used off-wiki and I don't want to out the editor. In regard to an on-wiki pattern:
  • Each of the three new editors made, as their first edit, a one-line userpage: [5] [6] [7]
  • They then made a short series of edits to topics related to the target article, before creating the new article. The edits made no real changes to content, but were mostly to remove broken or dead links - pretty much the same pattern as with the confirmed sock SunLover77 (talk · contribs), and similar to WestCoast91 (talk · contribs).
  • These early edits all use the same basic edit summaries: "removed dead link", "dead link" or just "removed broken link" ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12]) including on the older accounts.
  • The article itself is created in a single edit each time, with full wiki markup and full handcoded inline refs not using the ref templates.
  • Each editor then makes a few more edits to remove dead/broken links before ceasing to edit.
I'm not sure if that was what you were looking for, but hopefully with offwiki links in the email that may help. To be honest, I'm always impressed by and agree with the caution of checkusers in regard to SPIs, so no problems if there isn't enough to proceed, but I'll provide anything that I have that may help. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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
09 May 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


1) Operator of BiH has been moving many articles a few minutes after their creation by other users to proper capitalization. Examples:

This could be from newpage patrolling, but combined with evidence below, the highly focused nature of the moved pages, and the transient nature of the creating editors, it looks bad.

2) Account's "workshop" subpages also have a bad smell, with rapid creation of multiple likely PR-seeking (corp/celebrity) articles at a pace unlikely for one innocent editor. Here's a non-exhaustive list; timestamp of last edit is given:

Apparently, each "workshop" is edited, contents moved to article space, blanked, then abandoned with a remarkably repeatable process. This is by the way in addition to at least a dozen other corp articles BiH created since January this year, listed at User:Brianhe/COIbox2.

3) A particularly fishy case over a single article, Pixelmatic, where BiH rescued an abandoned article from another user's blanked sandbox:

This has the feel of a factory for paid editing with probable involvement of other accounts. Those listed in this case are just a sample. Brianhe (talk) 04:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4) Added one or more SPAs who quickly took over articles started by the sockmaster, e.g. [18], [19], [20]

Additional evidence (4) signed Brianhe (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coupay should be self explanatory. Brianhe (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6) Any editors who collaborated in any of the workshops listed above should be considered (potential) sockpuppets, example [21], [22]

Additional evidence (6) signed Brianhe (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7) Added user Herzlicheboy (a blocked sock account) on the strength of co-involvement in The Mutiny Hotel, another article that has a strong odor of COI about it. — Brianhe (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8) Added user Aksnahar, created Dr. Samieh Rizk from User:BiH/Samieh Rizk created by BiH about a month earlier. Brianhe (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another note, this username came up in a COI investigation furball that ended up spawning another SPI in October 2014. — Brianhe (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 The Mutiny Hotel was created by Herzlicheboy in 2013, expanded by BiH in 2015 into something quite different; now up for deletion as promotional, even though toned down from the brochure that it was. It doesn't look like collaboration to me now, and their writing styles are quite different, I'm willing to say that was a mistake on my part. However I'd also like to point out that User:Brianhe/COIbox2 is now up to over 80 articles created by BiH, nearly all of which could be seen as promotional, and many are now up for deletion or already deleted, it was perhaps easy to cast too wide a net in this investigation. As for Rizk, I don't know exactly what was going on, but it seemed important to list an occurrence of the apparent connection, given the easy-to-see collaboration in BiH "Workshop" pages. I notice now that a Rizk article had been deleted earlier, so maybe they both had access to the deleted content with the intent to re-reference it and recreate the article? Without BiH's meaningful participation here it's all kind of speculative. Brianhe (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Added IP 173.174.119.149, their only 2 edits are on Planview here and here. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection whatsoever with these users mentioned above and CheckUser will confirm that. In my opinion, I was working on the legit articles with established notability with references being perhaps bad or weak in some of them, but other users have full right to challenge that and to remove or improve as such. I was expecting some constructive advice though. The way I was handled and tagged by User:Brianhe in his edit comments is not something I was expecting from a future admin. I was putting a lot of my time handling vandalism in recently created articles and with a lot of success, and that was somehow neglected and I was tagged as a spammer, vandal, disruptive, etc. --BiH (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23:: I am talking about unnecessary comments such as, I quote: "diamonds, a spammer's best friend", "London (IP) calling", etc. It's somewhat rude or let's say childish to accuse someone of being something without seeing the wider picture. However, I've seen that Brianhe has done the similar in the past, so I can understand the reaction. --BiH (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

14 September 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


User:BiH is a self declared paid editor of whose many paid creations have already been deleted or are currently under AfD and/or tagged for CSD. User has been indefinitely blocked on 14 September 2015 per ANI and closed by Chillum here

User:Verbhg7 has made only 3 edits: all to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva, an article created by BiH. [23] [24] [25]

User:Bigm07 has only edited Nextiva where among other edits they twice removed the AfD template [26] and [27] and added Wikilinks to Nextiva at List of Arizona companies and List of corporations in Phoenix and List of unified communications companies and with fewer than 15 edits added themselves as a teahouse host [28]

user:Walkeryh has made only 2 edits: Removal of AfD template at Nextiva [29] and deletion of user votes [30]

Kingglass 2 edits only, both to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva at [31] and [32]2

User:Willi Joseph, ostensibly a paid editor 'working as a content creator' added Wikilinks to the Nextiva page, and created several promotional pages (since deleted). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added Lily87h, SPA with exactly two edits: one at Maggie Szabo and one at Tomas Gorny, both created by BiH. It's also curious that several accounts are of the pattern <name>h (including the possible sockmaster) or <name>7 and, in this case, <name>7h. — Brianhe (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

The pattern of creating an account [33], which then goes dormant for months until needed to work on a COI-ful article [34], is a screaming, flaming red flag. — Brianhe (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

All blocked and tagged except Willi Joseph. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created a new case for this group at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spamfree007. Closing this now. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17 September 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Attempt at start some sock linkage between accounts User:BiH. Evidence:

Comments by other users

Compare these two cases to see if retaliatory nomination fits the profile.

I don't know whether Pudkovka is BiH or maybe a competitor but a checkuser for all parties is certainly indicated. — Brianhe (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Added Sandiselins. Stick with me, this gets complex. Sandiselins is an SPA with suspicious involvement with mSpy [39] as well as Mobile Spy which is a creature of Retina-X Studios who also created PhoneSheriff. PhoneSheriff socking was one of the pieces of the BiH SPI that I was involved in, back in May. My working theory is there are two competing sockfarms trying to deny each other market share. This was hinted at in Arr4's comment and I think we should investigate. Recommend running checkuser against all accounts rounded up in the May SPI iteration. — Brianhe (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not knowledgable on Orangemoody, but a gut feeling is that your mental model may make more sense than this being Orangemoody sock. Don't even know if there's the same way of operating. Somehow overlapping on some articles - especially interesting EEE being a dab is interesting, don't know if helpful. I was advised to track the user activity in an SPI rather than on the (deleted) article and AfDs. Widefox; talk 19:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

05 October 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

New WP:SPA editing of MSpy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), created by previous SPA puppet. Not tagged for CU, leaving that to clerk/admin discretion. Murph9000 (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 June 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Runforlimit505 made about 10 contributions to AfDs to get autoconfirmed, then removed controversy section from Miroslava Duma. Prior socks of User:BiH have done similarly. It appears likely that this is at the least UPE and I apologize if it would be more correct to report this elsewhere. Here's a diff from sock Plaxie,[40] here the most recent edit.[41] Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vanjagenije, yes, the whole lot. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More