Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epastreich/Archive

06 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

It appears that these two accounts are editing in conjunction to promote the activities of Emmanuel Pastreich and the Asia Institute. Both articles were created by Epastreich, and the autobiographical one was deleted at AfD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emanuel_Pastreich it was later recreated in 2011 and deleted under G4:. Most recently it was recreated once more by user Snowfalcon cu here. That same user attempted to recreate the Asia Institute article, which had been speedy merged after Afd Articles_for_deletion/The_Asia_Institute. Both accounts are now providing evidence about the subject of that article here:  and  and Epastreich fine-tuned a post by Snowfalcon cu about the same here. It appears these two accounts are acting as either a sock or meat with a focus on promoting Pastreich and his activities with the Asia Institute. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. It also is kind of interesting that epastreich posted a comment on Kf4bdy's page here:, as the only connection I seem to be able to find between Kf4bdy and this sock is the welcome message from Kf4bdy on user snowfalcon cu's page here:. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

P.P.S. Snowfalcon_cu has now added deeplinks to graphical files that were added in November 2012 to Pastreich's blog in a hidden directory with this edit. The links are to scans of his degrees which are not mentioned in the blog at all such as and. For the citation to be added by Snofalcon_cu to a hidden file on Pastreich's blog it would be impossible for them to not be at the very least working together as a meat, if they are actually different people. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Response - I welcome any user to sift through the six years of my edits to uncover some pattern that links me to anyone else's account {place yawn here}. Now, you make the important claim that both Pastreich's and my comments are now acting in conjunction on both pages. This is why. A few days ago you told me that Pastreich should be the one to comment on what has happened to the The Asia Institute, not me, about its history. And, you also mentioned that he already has an account.  Two good points.  So, I emailed him directly about it.  Even more, I provided him the links of where exactly the issues are (i.e., where exactly he should type).  So, if there is anything you should level at me, it should be that I am not neutral, not a sock-poppet.  I freely admit that I am perhaps not neutral, though I try hard to be, but I am most certainly not anyone elses Wiki account.  (If you want me to explain why I do not doubt I am not neutral, I would be happy to do so). But, I will say both you and he were right in saying that should not have posted his email response in the talk section.  I am sorry about that.  I skimmed through his two emails and did not catch, at the top, that he did not want to post the details in public.  I will send an apology, but, this is altogether a different matter unrelated to the socket-puppetry claim.  Snowfalcon cu (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When you say you are "not neutral," it would be helpful to have some more information about why you have a potential bias in editing these articles. What is your relationship with the institute and Pastreich, if you don't mind sharing?  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But this is not why you brought me here. You have accused me of sock-puppetry.  Latter has no bearing on the former.  Once the case is dropped I can answer in the Pastreich talk section why I do not think I am strictly neutral about the article. Until then lets please address this embarrassing issue you invoked. Snowfalcon cu (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it is pretty relevant. If you would be so kind as to read over WP:SOCK you will note that one aspect of sockpuppetry is "Persuading friends or acquaintances to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry)."  Since you have clearly implied you have some sort of conflict of interest and have an editing pattern that strongly overlaps with the subject of the article, the question of sockpuppetry is quite relevant. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I read it.  Does not apply to me.  I created my account in 2006.  First article I ever edited is thus: Silleuksa].  Pastreich and I have never interacted on Wiki until I emailed him a few days ago.  My original [above] point remains.  Snowfalcon cu (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm getting confused now. You mentioned you have a reason to be non-neutral, yet you have never interacted with Pastreich on Wiki until you emailed him a few days ago.  Do you mean you never interacted with him or his institute at all?  Or just not on Wiki? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I am neutral because I was in the audience at one of his talks some time ago. Because I had a good impression of this foreigner at a Royal Asiatic Society colloquium, I looked him up in English, noticed (surprised) there was nothing about him, and decided to write it on my own.  I told him in the email that I was in the audience at his seminar and know about his autobiography book in Korean.  Hence, I am not strictly neutral on this matter. This is not a big country.  Snowfalcon cu (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Closing without prejudice to raise the issue at a later date. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)