Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dmzumwalt/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I'm coming here because the above editors all have one thing in common - all of them have come to Articles for deletion/The Latin Testament Project (opened by ) to vote keep for The Latin Testament Project. Each of them seem to vote in a similar style and have similar words of praise for the project. It's a little unusual that they would all come and write in such similar manners, which occasionally includes forgetting to sign their statements.

Here's a rundown:


 * is the oldest account, having signed up in 2009. He was inactive after the article for RTPark was deleted but came back in order to argue for the retention of the project article. I put the SPI under this because of the account's age, rather than the person who created the article.
 * is the second oldest, signed up in 2013. They made a handful of edits off and on but stopped editing in March 2015 until they suddenly returned to argue for a keep.
 * created the article. He signed up on 22 June 2016. His edits have mostly surrounded the project, but have included Henderson, Texas, which offhand looks to be where the project is located. In other words, his edits seem to be related to the project in some form or fashion with only one or two exceptions.
 * has only one edit, to argue to keep the article. His account was created on 15 September 2016.
 * has only one edit, which was to argue for a keep on the AfD. His account was created on 16 September 2016, making it the latest account.

I think that this is likely more meatpuppetry than sockpuppetry, given that the only true similarities is that you have four accounts that were either created after the AfD was launched or they suddenly logged back in after at least a year of inactivity, all to "vote" for the article to be kept. I have no opinion on the notability of the project as of the time of this SPI, but I do find it very suspicious that these accounts just so happened to open up an account all of a sudden. This might be due to this Twitter notice, but the guy's follower amount is really small, only about 300 followers, making it mildly hard to believe that there would be this many people coming in to try to save the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * For the record, I do not have more than one Wikipedia account, I am not related or acquainted to my knowledge with any other parties presumed by Tokyogirl79 to be sockpuppets, and I voiced my support for the work in question because I am familiar with it and believe it merits continued inclusion on Wikipedia. dmzumwalt Dmzumwalt (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)  Correction:  Upon further review, I realized that I am familiar with user "Jgc searchlight," but did not coordinate my submission in support of the article with that or any other user.  dmzumwalt Dmzumwalt (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A question then - how did you come across the article's deletion notice? Part of what looks suspicious is the number of new accounts and inactive accounts that came to the page. This is something that can be indicative of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  14:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have only one Wikipedia account, and have not opened any others.Jgc searchlight (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The five accounts are ❌. Jgc searchlight and Kgp845 are between and .--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Jgc searchlight blocked for 3 days for organizing meatpuppetry. Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)