Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EugeneK/Archive

09 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

TruthInfects (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * User:EugeneK added wp:libel material on Panasonic
 * I removed it, citing vandalism, as all the references were in russian, and i couldn't read it.
 * User:EugeneK reverted it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panasonic_Corporation&oldid=437647635
 * There was a discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Panasonic_Corporation
 * I sought a third opinion, and consensus was reached that material should be removed.
 * I removed the material http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panasonic_Corporation&oldid=438318023
 * User:Frozenport reverted it back to what User:EugeneK added http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panasonic_Corporation&oldid=438388792
 * I suspect User:Frozenport is a sockpuppet of User:EugeneK, who has been used to circumvent consensus.}}

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Thanks for looking into this! I take it then that User:EugeneK and User:Frozenport are basically controlled by the same individual. I will remove the offending material, and leave it up to the admins to decide whther or not to ban User:EugeneK and User:Frozenport, or just talk to them.TruthInfects (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not confirmed that they are the same individual. Please do not say as such. I have removed your statement on the talk page of the article that professes they are confirmed sockpuppets as, quite simply, I have not said that. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a sock puppet. If EugeneK is the person I think he is, I visited User:EugeneK a couple months ago. I had an IRL conversation with User:EugeneK about how an edit he made caused some unexpected commotion. I was particularly surprised because Panaonic had boasted about their corporate sponsorship, and I remember reading articles where Panasonic made this claim. Days later and not intentionally, I stumbled upon more articles and, curious, wondered if they were in the article in question. In the spirit of Wikipedia I decided to contribute my knowledge of these two citations. I didn't write a word. I just added 2 citations! I frequently Wikipedia edit articles and exchanges with my friends often have "TIL" (Today I Learned) in the subject line and half my edits are on articles I have been recommended to read. I don't hesitate to contribute and do often (most of the time i'm not even logged in...). So lets summarize, User:EugeneK and I have crossed paths, he commented on how frustrating Wikipedia can be and how edits are undone with clandestine intent and gave this as the principle an example, 2 days later I stumbled upon some more information on this subject, seeing that the paragraph had not been removed I contributed two citation. People like User:EugeneK and the random article button are how I access Wikipedia: without them I wouldn't know what to read! Given the query that was done, I probably show up as a "sock puppet" of at least a dozen users. I'm glad I was able to clear this up. Now, hopefully, my two citations can be put back and the issue of the factual content of the paragraph in question can be addressed: isn't that why we are here? Best --Frozenport (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A user speaks to his friend about how someone's out to get him, and that friend takes it upon themselves to defend him! If I had a penny for every time I'd heard that, I'd be a very rich man. Anyway, this page is only about sockpuppetry accusations. Anything else should be discussed somewhere else. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * If those were the only edits i would of blocked right away, but there are more histories here. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  17:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a definite link between the accounts. They've edited from the same IP before, but probably not from the same machine. Curiously they didn't edit from the same IP on the day in question. They're not located anywhere near each other but seem to have little trouble editing from each other's IPs though, so it's not very likely to be a coincidence that one is backing the other up on an article... --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Talking to the editors might be the best at this point. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  10:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My suspicion based on the message that Frozenport has left here and based on an email I received from EugeneK is that these are two accounts operated by two different people. However, based on what they've said, I don't think they're nearly as innocent as they claim to be; I suspect that it wasn't some discussion about Wikipedia that then him checking the article randomly and reverting to the version preferred by his friend, but that EugeneK contacted his friend Frozenport and either implied or asked directly that he would like him to revert for him. Given that there is no hard evidence of this, I recommend the following course of action:
 * No actions taken against the EugeneK and Frozenport accounts.
 * Both EugeneK and Frozenport are warned that any further edits like this where one account reverts to the preferred version of the other account (or any other sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry issues between the two accounts) will be treated as sockpuppetry and acted upon accordingly.
 * --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  17:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)