Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DMRRT/Archive

13 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

DMRRT is a WP:SPA whose sole Wiki-activity is to create an article of a non-notable person for which I've filed an AfD. DMRRT first tried to censor it and has since been adding an enormous amount of WP:BOMBARD arguments, but nothing to demonstrate notability. As every established user has recommended delete,. This has seen the appearance of two obvious socks (be they direct socks or meatsocks) as per WP:DUCK. One is RCP110, also a WP:SPA. After one year of no activity, the account suddenly reappears when the AfD starts going for delete to add its support of DMRRT, and using exactly the same kind of language, phrases and arguments. Even duckier is Literarydiva, an account created today only to influence the AfD, again using exactly the same kind of arguments and even the same formatting as DMRRT and RCP110. It doesn't get much more obvious than this. Jeppiz (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I yesterday launched an SPI. Since then, a third apparent sock has joined in, M0302. Apart from the obvious in heading to the AfD in their first edit, using the same language as the others, whenever a new user's very first sentence on Wikipedia is "Let me begin by saying I am not a sock puppet", then most likely they are, alternatively here through meatsocking . Rather revealingly, the three suspected socks not only use the same language and expressions, all three also refer to the suspected sockmaster DMRRT just as "DM", , . As can be seen from those diffs, all three suspected socks, just like the suspected puppetmaster spend a disproportionate time discussing my "ego", and referring to me as "she" (I have never discussed or revealed my gender on Wikipedia). Seeing how identical their language use is, I'd suspect it's not four different persons, but at the very least it is an obvious meatsocking.Jeppiz (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

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


 * In this diff the accused sockmaster speaks of 'we', an unfortunate usage in the circumstances. I am undecided about the meaning and suggest it may be meat rather than sock puppetry. Fiddle   Faddle  13:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I asked the putative sock master the direct question about whether they use other accounts. They replied on their talk page, rather hidden amongst clutter, that they are both the sole user of DMRRT and that they use no other accounts. When pressed by the nominator about their relationship with the initially reported suspected socks they were vague or made no reply. Two of those suspected socks conversed with each other at the Deletion discussion, something that tends to imply meatiness, but is not conclusive. I collapsed that conversation as personal chit-chat with no direct relevance to the AfD.
 * Experience leads me to believe that these are probably professional colleagues fighting to save their heroine from a fate worse than death (deletion of the article) but I could always be mistaken. However, I would like to request CheckUser deployment since a further member of this happy band has arrived, and use that as my evidence for making the request. Fiddle   Faddle  16:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Another account has appeared at AFD (M0302) whose only edit is to the AFD []. In the edit the user also suggests that "professional colleagues" asked the user to review it, a sign of potential meatpuppetry. [] Cowlibob (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I came across these accounts on the Articles for deletion/Margaret Varnell Clark. All voting to retain the article by bombarding the AFD with long lists of references. [], [] []. DMRRT and RCP110 have primarily edited on this article. Literarydiva's only edit was on the AFD []. Cowlibob (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I hope and imagine that this claque will vanish of its own accord now the AfD has closed as delete. Looking at what links to DMRRT there is a discussion on the Teahouse which identifies an unnamed editor as one of DMRRT's colleagues. What is likely is that we have had an organised set of meats arrive at their behest to 'put right' a perceived injustice because, as one says in the deletion discussion there are few 'respiration therapists' on Wikipedia, and they wished to add one. Any urgency in investigating this seems to have become unnecessary (0.9 probability) but an investigation remains appropriate. Fiddle   Faddle  07:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Another new user,, has popped up at Jimbo Wales's talk page to protest (at great length) the deletion, followed yesterday by DMRRT. JzG has now blocked StudentQuery as a sock of DMRRT (I assume on behavioural evidence?). Note also that DMRRT and RCP110 had simultaneous seemingly identical drafts at AFC which were deleted for blatant copyvio: Articles for creation/Margaret Varnell Clark (DMRRT) and Articles for creation/Margaret V Clark (RCP110). DMRRT was asked at the time if they had two accounts , but doesn't seem to have answered one way or another. They may all be students/colleaugues of the subject rather than one person behind the accounts. Hard to tell without a checkuser. But I'm pretty sure they all have a personal connection with the subject. The level of aggression and desperation displayed at the AfD and its aftermath almost invariably occurs only when that connection is present. Voceditenore (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Deskana, did you also check ? See my comment directly above this one? Voceditenore (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That account did not show up in the checks, and there's little point checking it directly as it's already blocked. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 06:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
bordering on ✅ that the following accounts are related: Given that their votes didn't influence the outcome of the AfD at all and none of them have edited for a few days, I leave it to the admin that reviews this case to decide whether this behaviour is worthy of a block or not. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 06:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All accounts have been blocked indefinitely by JzG. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)