Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ghavindeonarain/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Ghavindeonarain is a declared Paid/Conflict of Interest editor on Robert Montgomery (physician) whose promotional and peacock edits were reverted, and who was asked to propose edits on the talk page instead. Proposed edits were reviewed by who implemented some and found others not to be verified by sources. Two days later, the Alexander Stonewall account was created and the very first edit was to implement Ghavindeonarain's requests. The account has since only edited this article. Some of Stonewall's edits were reverted for being promotionally worded and relying on primary sources. Two days later, the Morgan Damien account was created with the very first edit a comment on the article's talk page saying the sources are "legit" and the second edit to insert the COI-editor's requested content into the article. This is again the only article the account has edited. Both editors have said they have no affiliations with the article subject or COI editor  but this all feels just a bit too "coincidental". Melcous (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2018 (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 technical results are unhelpful. . The oldest account is Alexander Stonewall.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Clerk request Could this please be reordered per the above (suspected master swapped from "Ghavindeonarain" to "Alexander Stonewall")? As Bbb23 pointed out, Alexander Stonewall is the oldest account and thus would be the master if that is the outcome of the case based on behavioural evidence. I would do it myself, but do not wish to step on anyone's toes and feel that might be crossing the line into clerk duties. (If not, please advise.) -- The SandDoctor Talk 04:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC); struck 14:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, requesting a move in a case like this is also "crossing the line". Nor is it conventional for a non-SPI team member to change the status to "clerk" or to use the clerk request template. Putting aside the procedural niceties, a behavioral analysis should be done first. If the accounts are found to be socks, then the move should take place.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I will not use it again nor request in such a case. For the reason why clerk request was used: it is under the "Admin actions:" section of the "Indicators and other notes (for internal use)" expandable menu when editing, so I figured that it would not be an issue (same section with the Duck templates) and, by extension, that changing the status was alright due to their closely related nature. I realize now that it isn't the case and do apologize. -- The SandDoctor Talk 14:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're experienced, and coaching less experienced volunteers is fine. But telling patrolling admins that they cannot request clerk assistance because they are outsiders is completely inappropriate. The so-called "SPI team" includes all administrators, not just clerks and CUs. It is not some closed club. Patrolling admins have the full authority to manage cases, and nothing at WP:SPI/C or WP:SPI/AI suggests that we can not make clerk requests. Perhaps if you're not used to it, it's because you consider something as simple as a clerk request to be "crossing a line", and that's why you don't have more volunteers. Swarm  {talk}  21:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you're wrong, and I will continue to point out to anyone, whether it be a patrolling admin, like TSD, who, btw is doing a lot of very good work at SPI lately, which I appreciate, that what they're doing is either unconventional or inappropriate. You might want to think about the meaning of this section's header, which separates clerks, CheckUsers, and patrolling administrators. The last are not part of the SPI team, no matter how helpful they are. Finally, patrolling administrators do not have the "full authority to manage cases". If you want to continue this discussion, which, honestly, I'd rather not, please do so at my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No edits on any of these since early December. What sort of action is desired at this time? NativeForeigner Talk 05:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This case has sat open for three months, during which none of the accounts have edited. During this time, any number of people have looked at this case and not been convinced either way. I'm just going to go ahead and close this. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)