Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnhanes/Archive

03 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The master is an account from 2006 but did not start editing until about 48 hours ago. The Cavalino06 account is a SPA active on Serban Ghenea where a couple of users have been doing some cleanup, there's a COIN discussion and finally an afd. After the AfD, the master account activated and has been reverting clean up within that article - and also following the editors to other articles,. It looks like obvious socking, but I'm not entirely sure that there's not some other account behind this. This clearly looks like a bit of an operation with an 8 year old dormant account indulging in this sort of edit warring! &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging Please add, I'm sure I've missed something. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  19:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I thought meatpuppetry was more likely than socking here but let's see. There is also at the AFD  but again I thought that was meat. SmartSE (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

I agree with the actions taken so far against the original editor, Cavalino, and the new meatpuppet John Hanes. These two people (assuming the former is the article subject) have worked together extensively, and today the later has been involved in some disruptive editing on the page of another artist they've worked with. With regards to the third editor, they have declared that they work for the management company. You can google the company and see the list of artists - she has made some edits on other artists' page in what is clearly a paid advocacy role. You can google her and the company's name to get her role (presently Director of Communications at said management company). There is a serious COI issue with her edits too, and I also believe she was alerted and entered this debate by the same person who recruited the new editor John Hanes. If you look at her past edits - Shane Stevens is a client of AAM. The article is terrible, just a poorly written press release with unreferenced sentimental backstories etc. Andros Rodriguez and Mozella are also clients. The only other edits are to insert Trion (more clients of theirs) into the credits of other pages. This editor has not made a single edit that isn't related to clients of her employer. There is no doubt in my mind that this person has flagrantly, knowingly and willingly breached several serious rules on COI and paid advocacy over the course of 2015 and has no intention of making any positive contributions to the project other than those that result in direct financial benefit to themselves and/or their paymasters. I fully support extending the ban to this person and warning them not to attempt to edit related articles in the future.Rayman60 (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, you are violating my privacy and this time without pinging my name. To go as far as look at my LinkedIn page and report about this is completely uncalled for and makes me feel extremely uncomfortable. You already knew I worked for the management company, no need for your further "investigation" and report my job title. My job title was never discussed by me on Wikipedia therefore is a violation of my privacy. According to WP:OUTING, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes... job title and work organisation..."
 * You have crossed the line. --Hannahgracevc (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * and are . There is a possibility, as  suggests, that they are meat puppets. Based on the technical characteristics of the two accounts, if they are not socks there's almost a 100% likelihood they are meat puppets. On that basis, I have blocked them both but without tagging them as socks. Although sock puppetry policy includes a prohibition against meat puppetry, there is no meat puppetry template that I'm aware of. Sometimes I use the sock template anyway, but in this instance I won't.
 * , which I noticed before I ran the check by looking at the AfD, is ❌. The complete technical characteristics are not possible because the account is hiding their location. However, I would say the chances of them being a meat puppet are much less. Based on that, I'm not closing this case and will leave it up to SmartSe and whether to block Hannahgracevc.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to leave this particular account unblocked currently, pending the COIN investigation. There's a broader scope covered by the account and it's better handled through that venue on behavioral issues. The account has received a COI warning now, and alerted to the ToU. The rest of the contributions can also be evaluated there. Closing. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  02:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)