Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/R.Balm/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Per their contribs, these accounts are all WP:SPA for David B. Samadi who does robotic surgery. If you look at the top of the Talk:David B. Samadi page you will see that this article has been pounded by representatives of the subject of the article, including such blatantly named accounts as and  and. These four recent accounts in this SPI have been trying to add promotional content and delete negative content about Samadi from the Boston Globe.

Compare the most recent, with the following from Evonomix (note "pls" and the "no evidence" claim)
 * Mbc2017, who wrote So Boston Globe writes an article about him with no evidence base and you include that. ...Pls explain what kind of independent sources? (diff)
 * pls define "is not fully supported by the source" (diff) and I see you moved the Boston Globe as number 1 reference ...pls clarify why? (diff) and this section about the Boston Globe, The Boston Globe mention is not relevant for the biography. It is an article that presents no evidence.

At the article...


 * Evonomix also, in the article added (unsourced) ...Dr. Samadi is unique in that he is one of very few urologic Oncologic surgeons in the United States trained in all three primary areas of surgery-open, laparoscopic, and robotic.
 * Alexysmay89 recently added He is trained in all three primary areas of surgery-open, laparoscopic, and robotic. He is mostly known for using the da Vinci System for robotic prostatectomy.

This person is also thinks WP should be just like Samadi's website where he lists every media appearance he has made (see link right under his name at the top of the page), and of course has no negative content. This is what the named sockmaster R.Balm tried to make of the WP page about him:
 * here (big edit), but note the listing one by one of media appearances and blogs and removal of negative content, which was reverted by cluebot, and which R.Balm reinstated here.
 * the most recent sock has been arguing to cite Samadi's blogpage at El Pais, same notion as R.Balm. See TP section Talk:David_B._Samadi.

I realize that the master and Evonomix are stale, dating from March and April of this year. But behaviorally there is no doubt that Mbc2017 is Evonomix and as I noted these are just the most recent four of many. Not even counting the IPs.

You can do a CU if you want to find sleepers.Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I should add here that the two most obvious socks, Evonomix and Mbc2017 (who write the exact same way and are doing the same things) have given different answers to my COI inquiry about connections.
 * Mbc2017 wrote: I have no connection
 * Evonomix wrote: not being paid, we are friends.
 * I do not think either of those are true, but there is at least consistency in pretty obviously misrepresenting themselves. This is the essence of socking, after all. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2017 (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
The two non-stale accounts are .--Bbb23 (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing needs to be done here to prevent disruption. These accounts look to be abandoned throwaways. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)