Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nati595/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

These two accounts have submitted identical biographies of Dr. Chad Gordon. (The subject may or may not be notable.) That is the only activity of either account. If they are not the same duck, they are swimming in the same duck pond. Request Checkuser verification to verify, and to look for sleepers. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2019 (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

 * Checkuser comment: I think you're probably looking at a couple of different people who are swimming in the same duck pond.  Please note that  is semantically very close to the name of one of Dr. Gordon's trainees/residents, so it is more likely we are dealing with COI than socking.  Risker (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you recommend closing this case then ? -- The SandDoctor Talk 01:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not really seeing socking here; this strikes me more as friends/colleagues/students of the article subject just trying to figure out how to include the subject into the project. It can be pretty challenging to figure that out when dealing with this type of subject: while he *might* pass the notability standard for academics, we don't really have a good notability standard for professionals who are experts but may not be written about in a lot of independent sources. That's a little beyond the scope of SPI to figure out; I'd be inclined to close the socking case, but I would not be shocked to see a future draft on the same subject.  Risker (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Changing status from 'checked' to 'close' per comments by Risker. The SandDoctor  Talk 06:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)