Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MaranoFan/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


MaranoFan

MaranoFan (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
20 January 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Since the account Lips Are Movin was created, one look at their editing histories shows both accounts editing the same articles, using similar edit summaries, putting similar comments on talk pages, using similar editing styles, an obsession with GAN's for articles. Both also have a penchant for edit warring and arguing over their edits with other editors when anyone attempts to re-edit or revert them. They have also engaged in tag-team edit warring to push an agenda for content retention.

  • Their userspaces are nearly identical in appearance. MaranoFan: [1]; Lips Are Movin: [2].
  • Looking at the edits of each, it appears that none of their edits overlap or are at the same times. Their edits do, however, happen often within a few minutes of each other and in blocks of editing, then the other account in blocks of editing.
  • The Editor Interaction Utility shows that each editor has numerous articles in common, including the talk pages of other editors. A number of the articles in the list show a very similar number of edits from each of the accounts. [3]
  • On 1/18/15, each editor stopped editing nearly in the same time frame. The Lips account stopped editing at ANI at 13:07 [4]; the Marano account's last edit for several hours was at ANI at 12:44 [5]. Then, Lips started editing at the Meghan Trainor article at 23:09 [6], Marano started editing at Talk:Meghan Trainor at 23:28 [7].
  • On 1/19/15, Lips started editing at 7:44 [8], Marano at 6:13 [9]. None of their editing is done at the same time, but when one is editing so is the other. When one starts editing, so does the other within a short period of time. When one stops editing, so does the other within a short period of time.

At the very least this is a duck, I will not be surprised, however, if a CU finds they are the same editor. Request that a CU also look for sleepers or other accounts already being used along with these two. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • I initially voiced my concern about these two accounts at WP:ANI based on the evidence provided above. I don't have much to add, but I would like to point out a sequence of edits made after I raised concern over potential socking. At 2:09 a.m. (my local time) Lips Are Moving makes a protected edit request here [10]. Thirteen minutes later an admin responds, asking Lips to provide the wikitext for the requested edit [11]. Six minutes after that, MaranoFan responds with the requested text [12]. Also of note are similarities between their userpages. Marano's initially read simply "I am Brianna, hear me roar!" and Lips' read love Meghan Trainor so much and want to make her wiki articles THE BEST <3. Lips' userpage was gradually expanded to this [13], stating the user wanted Meghan Trainor up to GA status. Two days later, Marano's was changed to this [14], claiming they wanted Trainor at FA status. And in every interaction between the two on Lips' archived talk page (there are several threads to chose from), both accounts write in almost the exact same fashion using lots of exclamation points and smilies. In those threads, they also both use the ping template for every edit, which I find a strange thing to do on a user's talk page. -- Calidum 06:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that this is completely void. I am a frequent editor of the article and if a song charts, am completely free to suggest it at the talk page regardless of what others have done. Also, I copied Lips' userspace which he even called out here and warned me that there will be such allegations. Turns out he was right. MaRAno FAN 07:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please rush this SPI, so that it doesn't waste so much of my time. MaRAno FAN 06:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are sharing an account, you may want to make that clear. For example, the two accounts may belong to siblings or friends sharing the same connection. In other words, there are prosaic explanations for a false positive. You may want to be clear about your status before the SPI concludes. Otherwise, you may wish to say nothing. The choice is yours, of course. Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Viriditas: Thanks for the advice. I don't know Lips at all outside Wikipedia, not as much as his nationality. MaRAno FAN 07:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. It's important to be very clear about these things. Do you feel that the filing of this SPI is a form of harassment? If you do, then be careful to take the higher ground. You called the filing party a "troll" up above, and if you are in the right and he is in the wrong, there's no need for such language. In the United States, innocence is presumed unless proved otherwise. If you are innocent, don't give others a reason to discipline you. I personally understand from experience what it feels like to be falsely accused so I sympathize with your position. If the filing party has made an error, then they will be taken to task by others. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lol this is ridiculous and a clear form of WP:WIKIHOUNDING which User:Winkelvi and his friends in high places have brought upon me and MaranoFan over the last week across Meghan Trainor articles and at WP:ANI. This investigation will prove that me and MaranoFan aren't even from the same country. - Lips are movin 09:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lips, I do not believe Winkelvi has that many friends in high places, and at any rate that doesn't matter much in this particular forum (this isn't ANI, for instance). You and Marano should take Viriditas's advice, which is sound--though I disagree that filing an SPI easily amounts to harassment. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am against their misuse of this website, but I also think that these users are not same. They are editing this page, but one of the user has used good edit summaries, while the other one writes nothing or almost nothing. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does seem very suspicious that both editors have such a strong interest in Meghan Trainor, edit around the same time and reply to each other on talk pages very quickly, have similar signatures, and that LAM began making contributions indicative of an experienced editor on their first edit. I would be very shocked if this were a case of neither sockpuppetry nor meatpuppetry. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that MaranoFan recently requested speedy deletion of both their user page and talk page (the talk page was deleted but later restored), likely in response to some of the allegations made here. Make of that what you will. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are incorrect. Speedy deletion was requested approximately 30 minutes before the SPI was filed and before the user was warned. Therefore, your claim that they attempted to hide their tracks is untrue. I hope the CU notes the attempt by several editors in this discussion to cast guilt onto the accused before any formal investigation and without the slightest supporting evidence. Viriditas (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't check timestamps. That was my fault, but I think we can stop with the bad-faith accusations. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
False. Sorry to disappoint you but my pages were deleted much before any SPI warning was sent out. MaRAno FAN 18:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the tag-team being done by Lips and Marano, it may be clear that if they aren't socks, there's something going on against the user who opened this investigation. My sentiments also echo Chase; I would be surprised if even, at the core, meat-puppetry wasn't at the core of this issue. livelikemusic my talk page! 18:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chase's sentiments are clearly in error, as the accused user requested deletion before the SPI. Your claim that even if they aren't socks, there must be something going on against the filer of this SPI, defies logic and borders on a witch hunt. Please stick to the evidence and avoid making unsupported allegations. So far, without any evidence indicating sockpuppetry, the available evidence indicates that the author of this SPI report was involved in a content dispute with the accused and filed this report in retaliation. If that is indeed the case, then we have a far greater issue to deal with than sockpuppetry. Viriditas (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts concerning Chase's sentiments are not echoed through his thoughts on the user-requested deletion; it's to this statement: "I would be very shocked if this were a case of neither sockpuppetry nor meatpuppetry.". Truth is, there is a bigger issue at hand than a potential SPI, and this is not the forum to discuss it. livelikemusic my talk page! 19:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, if there is important evidence related to this report, then please offer it. Accounts can be blocked here based on behavioral evidence alone; no CU required. Viriditas (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy for these editors to throw accusations around but at the end of the day, no notable evidence is there to back it up. The filer has pretty much accused me of every negative accusation on Wiki possible so it's really nothing new. This is very much an act of retaliation, and as per usual the filer's friends come to his defense. The fact me and MaranoFan both like Meghan Trainor, frequently edit her articles and interact regularly on each other's talk pages proves absolutely nothing and if anything is just a mere case of similar interests. A CU would be very beneficial, I'd really like these editors to get off my neck, this week of drama with the filer has become really discouraging and time-consuming. - Lips are movin 21:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And yours/MaranoFan's attempt to have WV topic banned from Meghan Trainor articles for no good reason over a content dispute wasn't an act of retaliation? This is not an act of retaliation; the ANI from a few days ago that nearly boomeranged showed multiple editors are suspicious of you two - it just so happened WV was the first to file a report. I'm not sure what you mean by "notable evidence", but someone at the ANI pointed out multiple signs that raise flags. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the first to point out the major overlaps based on the editor interaction utility. I agree with Bladesmulti's finding about edit summaries. That was one of the pauses I have about them being the same...the other being that their edit times don't fully sync. However, I do find the fact that Lips Are Movin was able to find the copyright guild one day and 60 edits into a Wikipedia career, 6 days after MaranoFan found it for the first time, to be particularly head scratching. only (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are actionable allegations based on good evidence, I fail to see how consistently violating WP:AGF is helping make the case against these users. The only evidence we have so far, is that the filer of this SPI has engaged in a protracted content dispute and edit war with these users. One could conceivably make the case based on the available evidence, that the filer is trying to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Therefore, this report could be perceived as a form of harassment against these users. I would like to suggest that the CU be conducted soon. This continued mud flinging, to see if anything will stick against these users, is despicable. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Clerk declined I'm not convinced with the behavioral evidence presented. The similar user page could just be because LAM worked with MF on a similar topic, saw the user page, and copied it. The remaining diffs don't really see conclusive to me. There's also some signs that suggests the accounts aren't the same individual. The editing time frame for each user is off by four hours, suggesting they live in different time zones. (Lips Are Movin, MaranoFan) These edits (1 2) are 7 seconds apart, these (3, 4) are 8 seconds, 13 seconds for these (5, 6, and 19 seconds for these (7, 8). MaranoFan even reverted Lips Are Movin's edit here. Yes, it's all possible, but it's more than likely both accounts are not managed by the same person. With that aside, there seems to be a bit of an ownership and tag teaming issue with the two users on Meghan Trainor related articles. I would strongly caution both users to discuss and form a clear consensus with the rest of the community or else it's likely one or the other may find themselves at ANI facing editing restrictions. Continuing to edit war over a maintenance template 1, 2 and making personal attacks will also lead to blocks being issued. Mike V • Talk 03:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

03 May 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Mariogomez23's account was created on March 23, while MaranoFan was on a script-enforced wikibreak and unable to edit.

However, Mario did not edit until today. Mario's first edit was to my talk page (immediately raising my suspicions - most new users take to mainspace), asking how to upload files. (MaranoFan is topic banned from file editing until October.) He also ended the message with a smiley face emoticon, something that is typical of MaranoFan: 1, 2, 3... I could keep going.

There is also the matter of the username. "Mario" is not far off from "Marano"; and both usernames appear to indicate an interest in Disney Channel actresses. While "Gomez" and "Marano" are both relatively common surnames, it does not seem coincidental that they are the surnames of two recent teen actresses: Selena Gomez and Laura Marano.

All in all, this appears to be abuse of multiple accounts for ban evasion by MaranoFan. Requesting CheckUser as there isn't quite enough evidence to call a blatant WP:DUCK, though it seems very likely that these accounts are related. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, MaranoFan was very quick to welcome Mario upon his first edit. Also, notice the timestamps for their contributions. Mario first edited today at 16:46, inbetween two edits from MaranoFan at 16:42 and 16:52 (the welcome message to Mario, coincidentally).
MaranoFan ceased editing at 16:58 before Mario came in for three more edits at 17:03, 17:09, and 17:19. MaranoFan also edited at 17:19, but this was simply to blank the SPI notification – seems reasonable that MF could have quickly logged out, logged back into her main, and blanked out a section within a minute. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two reports were filed, almost simultaneously, by both Chasewc91 and myself - am adding my report to this report.

  • Evidence is as follows:
  • Shortly after suspected sockmaster was told to no longer post to the talk page of editor User:Chasewc91, an out of the blue comment from the suspected sock account appears at the same talk page: "Hey, im Mario and I am yet to start my wikipedia endeavors. I have worked for pedia sites before im just new to Wikpedia as a new editor. I have been working on a new page for wikipedia I just need some advice,pointers, or it to be spot checked for any errors that could violate any rules, as well as I cant upload a file yet which I would need for this page. If you could help me out id appreciate it thanks :)"
  • That message was the first edit of suspected sock - diff/link is here [15].
  • Suspected sock spoke of "uploading files" in the message, something suspected sockmaster (MaranoFan) has been sanctioned for, and banned from uploading, with an AN report filed originally by Chasewc91 (see here [16]).
  • Suspected sockmaster was the first to "Welcome" the suspected sock to Wikipedia [17].
  • MaranoFan then posted the following at the talk page of a friend of his (also suspected of ban evasion socking - see here for two currently open SPI cases: [18]) "Lol. this shold be interesting. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 16:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)" [19].
  • Suspected sockmaster has a long history of behaving immaturely in the form of disruption when they are opposed on their views regarding articles or their edits are either improved upon or changed. Disruption in the past includes hounding, stalking edits, posting bogus warning templates on editor talk pages, making pointy edits/AfD noms, and filing bogus AN/ANI/AN3 reports. Socking does not seem out of the realm of possibility.
Someone's playing games - I think the evidence points to the suspected sockmaster. Requesting CU as well as a look for sleeper/other socks, especially since the suspected sock account was created during MaranoFan's self script-imposed Wiki-break. Based on this, it is very likely there are other sock accounts out there created by the sock/sockmaster. My gut tells me more will be found. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE Salvidrim!, could you please look at the current AN report regarding MaranoFan and note the two comments there from User:Lips Are Movin? There was an SPI at the beginning of the year (contained in the MaranoFan SPI archive) that was for both Lips and MF. At the time, the clerk did not endorse it. As of today, there are two comments from Lips at the AN report - and they have retired and not edited for months. Yet, out of the blue, at the same time Marano has placed themselves under a script enforced block until October, Lips returns to comment against Chase and me and in favor of MaranoFan. Seems quite suspicious and I think it merits the previous SPI being resurrected. I am currently at work and unable to edit on anything other than my tablet (which makes cutting and pasting from tab to tab very difficult with a frequent loss of info between screens). Trying to reopen that SPI or add diffs here would be frustrating and near impossible. Thanks for looking into this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • This is ridiculous. Another form of WP:BAIT. These users have been involved in a neverending dispute with me. There is no evidence at all here. I was editing Chase's tak page today. A few minutes after I left, I saw a confused user at his page asking for help. I just welcomed them. But Chase and Winkelvi would leave no chance to trouble me. Check on their contributions, they have been deleting my articles, opposing me on discussions and banning me from their talk pages. This is nothing new and they have a record of lodging false SPIs against editors they are involved in content disputes with. That is not me and I know nothing about both the aforementioned actresses whatsoever. Marano is my real life surname. Also, after this SPI fails, I want some action against these users. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is plenty of evidence provided by myself and Winkelvi if you would care to actually address it. It seems unlikely that you have no knowledge of Selena Gomez when you uploaded the artwork for one of her recent singles. Also, if "Marano" is your actual surname, why does your username also include "Fan", implying "a fan of Marano"? –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is SPI? And why have i been claimed for it ? I havent posted anything? Ive never worked or edited for wikipedia before. I dont care for disney stars lol. I dont like disney! I have only edited for pedia websites such as cod.halo pedias. since im new here, I went on recent changes to find an active user and asked for help because im trying to create a new page. i havnt submitted it yet since i dont know if it would violate rules, and need help with uploading a picture/file, etc. seriously, check my twitter same username as my wikipedia. i havne posted in a few weeks, but it legit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariogomez23 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you are actively pointing out that I used to upload a lot of files. If I were to sock, why would I be clueless about uploads and go to the user who is dead set to get rid of me? I know how to upload files, have GAs, Barnstars and you are comparing me to a completely clueless person. This is even a new low for you. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uninvolved comment: This seems to be a fishing expedition. Calidum T|C 17:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calling an SPI a fishing expedition only applies when there is not sufficient evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. Best to leave such a determination up to clerks who are experienced at SPI report investigations. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How's this? The alleged sockpuppet account was created at 0142 UTC. MaranoFan has made only a few edits during at that time [20] meaning they likely live in different time zones. Or the fact that there doesn't appear to be any actual breech of policy (the alleged sock account merely mentioned uploading images, and didn't do it) or grounds for using checkuser in this case. Calidum T|C 18:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict):::(edit conflict)Hey, I get it. You're a "friend" of MaranoFan/Joseph Prasad/et al because of the "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy, and you don't want to believe the possibility that the report could turn up something proving the accusations correct. And, Calidum based on your history of favoring MaranoFan in disputes and you seeking to have me blocked, etc., you cannot, in any form call, yourself "uninvolved" (these three diffs are the most recent evidence of such [21], [22], [23]). Whatever. How about we let the clerks and CU do their job based on the evidence they find? There certainly seems to be plenty of reasonable evidence presented that would give SPI admin clerks a reason to do a check. Bottom line for me? I don't like seeing anyone brought here and having the evidence proven to be true. I take no pleasure in anyone getting blocked/sanctioned/etc. I'd much rather see editors become productive contributors. But, sometimes, you have to do what you have to do in order to keep things running smoothly and without wild, out-of-control disruption. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Our history? Like supporting your SPI on this very same editor in January? I'm not here to make this personal, I just don't see sockpupettry in this case. And you're a good editor (Chase too), you both just seem so preoccupied on MaranoFan that you're letting your feelings on her cloud your judgment. Calidum T|C 18:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's all changed as of late, and you know it. See the above diffs I provided as evidence of your "agenda". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mario came asking about how to upload files though, which indicates that he plans to once his account reaches autoconfirmed status. That would be in violation of MaranoFan's ban. And I don't know what you're talking about, but the "grounds for checkuser" link does mention sock puppetry, which appears to be what is going on here. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes i came asking to upload files. The files i wanted to upload was a picture (logo) for a page i was trying to create. And what happens when they find out that im a legit account, and that the accusers were wrong?
Don't forget "Innocent till proven guilty". I would never violate a ban. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 18:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a court of law nor is it a democracy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advice on file uploading? When you are currently banned from editing files? And why was Mario's account created during a time period when you were unable to edit from your own account? Come on now. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im sorry for whatever i stumbled upon. I had no idea, i just randomly went to the recent changes and chose chase and wrote to him that i needed help. from reading what you guys have written, it very much looks like a coincidence but can assure you this is that 1 in a million times that this is seriously a big misunderstanding. I trust me, i hate disney! i dont care for any of them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariogomez23 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about these attention-seeking disruptive user, I try to avoid them. Yet they keep following me around. A few months ago, following a content dispute, these users accused me and Lips Are Movin of sockpuppetry. It was completely false and WP:REVENGE-y. I would like for someone to take action against these users. It is literally so early to even get any behavioral evidence on the other party. Also to note is that Winkelvi offered their support to the SPI before any evidence was presented. Classic case of WP:REVENGE. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since I know this user is not me, there is nil behavioral evidence that I would be blocked before Checkuser. And Checkuser will prove that we are not related. I am going to stop responding here. Let the SPI run its course. But ofcourse, some action has to be proised against the disruptive users. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 18:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • when is my account going to be notified of weather im "real or not" because i would like to start contributing to wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariogomez23 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I am aware, there is nothing to prevent you from editing right now -- however, if the CheckUsers and Admins here determine that you are a sockpuppet (an "illegal" extra account) of MaranoFan, then your account will be indefinitly blocked and the MaranoFan account will be blocked for an appropriate time period as detertmined by them. If any of your edits are violations of MaranoFan's "topic ban", they will be subject to immediate deletion as an evasion of that ban. Also, almost every edit you make will inevitably provide evidence either for or against the supposition that you are a sockpuppet. So... you make the call. BMK (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk note: I'm not quite ready to endorse this for CU attention, but I need to post a few of my thoughts -- Mariogomez23, from the evidence provided, seems likely to be a puppet of MaranoFan (sock or meat). But, none of the edits from Mariogomez23 would be a violation of any restriction placed on MaranoFan (uploads) -- just a few talk page posts and then comments on this SPI. Maybe a failed cleanstart? Maybe a friend? Maybe willfully trying to confuse/evade detection? Maybe a sock in prevision of the possible CBAN or probable IBAN pending on AN right now? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Actually, the evidence has me convinced that this is a situation where Mariogomez23 and MaranoFan are linked closesly (sock or meat), and since they are explicitly claiming to be unrelated, it would constitute a violation of WP:SCRUTINY, so I am endosing for a CU check. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The accused appear to be Red X Unrelated to each other. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: As it stands, it seems plausible (likely, even) that MaranoFan and Mariogomez are friends (RL or otherwise) and/or meatpuppets, as was (IMHO) the case with Lips. I don't find evidence solid enough to block for sockpuppetry on behaviour alone (at least not yet, considering how little there is to work with), and if it is a matter of a friend "recruiting" another, well, so far there are no bypassings of restrictions through Mariogomez, but in the future, if that account is used to bypass MF's (current or future) restrictions by proxy, then there is a case for blocking. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing as inconclusive. I do believe there is some form of collusion but as the accused master has possibly retired with an interesting edit summary, the best way for going forward would be for editors to continue to monitor and report as necessary.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22 March 2016[edit]

22 May 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

If I am wrong here, I apologise wholeheartedly, but the coincidences were too striking not to take action. This alleged puppet's first edit was a comment on the alleged puppeteers' talk page, with their second edit being to create their talk page with the words 'Me Too', the title of a Meghan Trainor song which the puppeteer heavily edited.

They then set themselves a self-expiring block, which the puppeteer repeatedly did when they thought they needed to cool down from Wikipedia. The user is now back to edited Meghan Trainor content, as the puppeteer loved doing.

Like I said, if I am wrong, I do apologise, and I can see there's not a tonne of evidence to go off of, but, the puppeteer was a repeated offender, and if it quacks. Azealia911 talk 22:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18 June 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Evidence:

  • Strong interest in female pop artist articles, especially Meghan Trainor articles, just like MaranoFan: [24], [25], [26].
  • For only being here a few weeks, already many articles in common with MaranoFan: [27]
  • Starts reviewing articles and submitting articles for review less than two weeks in: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33].
  • Archiving talk page comments like a pro, just three weeks into editing: [34]
  • Huge lack of edit summaries, just as MaranoFan was fond of doing, but when he does leave edit summaries, they are quite astute in the way of an experienced Wikipedia editor ("unreliable sources" ... a new editor knows well what is unreliable and what isn't? Knows what redirecting is about, what a "topicon" is and how/why to add it? Not in my experience. [35], [36], [37], [38], [39].

Evidence shows duck at the very least. Quack, quack. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. It's extraordinary to me how many experienced editors acquiesced to an account that was created only a few weeks ago taking on several good article reviews and then implementing them. One doesn't have to know the account is a sock to realize something is very wrong with this picture. I've reverted/deleted all those reviews. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


19 June 2017[edit]

22 June 2017[edit]

01 July 2017[edit]

10 March 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Overwhelmingly editing Meghan Trainor articles, particularly her then-most recent project, is MaranoFan's MO. Last year, it was with Beachey23 and Trainor's songs from 2016, "Me Too" and "Better". Many of Beachey23's edit summaries resemble CCabello's: one word or several with basic descriptions of what they did, which was MaranoFan's behaviour when article-building. Despite naming their account after Camila Cabello, they appear to have only edited two Camila Cabello articles.

I also find it very suspicious that so soon after registering to Wikipedia, CCabello is:

  • Already making redirect drafts with AfC submission templates: [40], [41]
  • Creating redirects for Trainor's songs: [42], [43]
  • Uploading .ogg excerpts of Trainor's songs: [44],
  • Moving other songs with the same name as Trainor's latest song to a disambiguated namespace: [45],
  • Already has multiple Trainor articles in common with MaranoFan: [46], and
  • Has similar edit summaries to Beachey23. While common enough across Wikipedia, it's a far smaller pool for accounts editing a singer's articles. "Expansion": Beachey23 on "Better", CCabello on "No Excuses". "+": Beachey23 on "Me Too", CCabello on "No Excuses".

I can't quite recall which as I'm quite sure they aren't tagged under the category of "suspected sockpuppets of MaranoFan", but there was also a sock account last year who was moving pages out of the way due to there being a Meghan Trainor song of the same name. I believe I had some contact with them and didn't suspect them before I later found that they were blocked as a sock of MaranoFan. Will add this if I can find it. Ss112 22:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MaranoFan/Archive&oldid=1142566930"