Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EuanHolewicz432/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Sock or meat situation. Two new users with few edits but unusually expansive knowledge of Wikipedia practice. EuanHolewicz432 made their first edit on 1 September, adding a category and using a minor tag. Their second edit was on 23 September to the Coco Chanel page, and their third and fourth edits refer to old talkpage posts and to consensus. Following their subsequent opening of a talkpage discussion, ToeSchmoker was created/activated, making the next edit on their talkpage in support of Euan. The next day Euan removed a warning on their talkpage from MrOllie with the summary "disrespectful and typical of the user...", so perhaps some history there.

Both re-appeared on 3 October to re-edit war the same edit (Euan: Toe:), again with precociousness. Both then shortly after sent identical edit warring warnings on User talk:SnapSnap.

On 11 April both appeared on the Radio Free Asia talkpage in quick succession, a page neither had edited before.

There is apparently some knowledge of IP checks, but thought it worth requesting a CU just in case. CMD (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC) CMD (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

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

I see another user fancies themselves a detective - and is also quite sore about being opposed on a talk page (! - mere jest, no harm intended). Regardless, I don't see how knowledge of Wikipedia policy or practice can be "unusually expansive" considering you should, well, know Wikipedia policy before editing Wikipedia. As I've already been vindicated insofar as CUs go I must say it is somewhat flattering - in an odd way - to be complimented on one's knowledge of Wikipedian know-how at such an early stage of my "Wiki career". I sometimes check ToeSchmoker's page/edits ever since the Chanel dispute (that one being pure chance, I guess) to see if he still has faced issues regarding it/still is involved in it - I noticed the RFA discussion and joined in. I do not believe he has any knowledge of this, unless there is some way to see this kind of activity that I am not aware of. I find the whole situation quite funny - the thought of accusing editors who oppose my viewpoints on certain topics (of which there are plenty - see the Lockheed Martin "cabal" [no inflammatory statement - or God forbid accusation - intended!] or the Chanel dispute) never crossed my mind. I hope perhaps that clears up a bit and I eagerly await your future findings. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised. Just look at CMD's editing history, continuously accusing users as socks. BenkovacZrinjski (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for my belated comment but I had not been tagged. Yes, the "Coco Chanel" page was what prompted me to make an account... as unfortunate as it is I figure people with usernames instead of IPs are more likely to be involved in discussion and not have their edits immediately revoked. Not everyone is receptive to IP users and their edits but I digress. As far as I'm aware that is the only article or talk page EuanHolewicz432 and I have both engaged in. From what I read EuanHolewicz432 says they sometime check my account. I guess that is your explanation for their involving themselves in the Radio Free Asia talk page. Let me know if I can help your investigation in another way. I am not really one for the cliques etc. on Wikipedia. I am here to contribute not make friends. Thanks. Yours, ToeSchmoker (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , can you re-check these two against the account ? That account together with the other two here are acting in coordination at the NPOVN discussion on this matter - see how they are all replying to me. CPCEnjoyer is also reported at ANI, partly for being a recently created single-purpose account. Here is the discussion (permalink). In any case it is clear to me that either WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK is being violated here (sometimes sockpuppeteers evade CU). Crossroads -talk- 03:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to say you are making quite a mockery of the RFA discussion. Are you perhaps unable to acknowledge that people have different viewpoints than your own? This is quite dehumanizing. Users are "all replying to you" because they share a common viewpoint in a dispute. I've already stated my case above, I must add that this allegation of "acting in coordination" applies just as much against any other editor on that noticeboard, since the extent of this supposed coordination is contributing to the discussion. Without romanticizing too much, I must say this is souring my impression of Wikipedian discussion. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ❌ as far as checkuser evidence goes...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe these are two distinct people. I suspect that they are coordinating in some way or know each other (mostly on grounds of how quickly they showed up together at the two discussions mentioned above), but I am not confident enough in my suspicions to act on them. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)