Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Histoire2020/Archive

24 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Three users working on the same articles: Mordechai Zaken and Nazareth. I suspect a conflict of interest. All three usernames begin with letters and end with numbers. All three share the same pattern of making repeated edits without edit summaries. Histoire2020 set up the Mordechai Zaken article in his sandbox but KJH2014 created the page. Wavehunter (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to add that I believe Histoire2020 acted in good faith. If clerks and administrators decide that sockupuppetry has indeed taken place, I would appeal for understanding and leniency. --Wavehunter (talk) 10:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

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

HALLOֱ,

1.	First, I read and heard that at Wikipedia, the more experienced and editors "should be soft with newcomers…" I am not sure this is the case here.

2.	let me start by saying that I am new to Wikipedia and Wikipedia is new to me, and only very recently, I began dedicating to it more time and energy.

3.	I had an account or two previously, but I did only small or minor editing.

4.	I indeed have used several accounts, but I never knew it is not allowed.

5.	One can tell that I am new, from all the many messages I received re. Disambiguation pages… and other robot notes on broken links and so on.

6.	 one of the accounts was created during Wikipedia workshop at the National library, Jerusalem. Israel, conducted on May 26, 2014. the reason I created a new account was because I could not have logged in with the other account.

7.	Even in the explanation to "sock puppetry," a term which I came across for the first time today, it is said that holding several accounts is acceptable.

7a. I only now noticed that I have to submit an "edit summary" every time I make a change. Most of the changes I made, anyhow, were minor changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Histoire2020 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

8.	I wish to stay anonymous. I wish to contribute anonymously, if not, I will probably give it up. Is there any rule against it in Wikipedia? Why I cannot keep my privacy? I do not KNOW the rules of wikipedia VERY WELL, but I was surprised that attempts WEre made to find out my identity, or to suggest identity of the writer by name, so why don't we all appear by real names and not usernames? I am not clear if this is a Wikipedia policy, but I wonder if it is?

9.	I am still not an editor (am I?!) I just had several contributions on subjects I know well.

10.	I guess because It is new to me, I may have done things that may look suspicios.

11.	I have never used my accounts to vote. I do not know how it works.

12.	I did not use accounts to back other users in arguments… I am not in contact with any other user...

13.	More importantly, '''I have never done any editing "for purposes of deception" ''' 14.    More importantly: I have written and edited articles in the fields of my specialties and they are based on my knowledge or research.

15.	Things I have written or edited, I am willing to stand behind them in 100% that they are reliable, non-biased and based on sources and reality, and could be verified, and they are based on my intimate knowledge and specialty.

16.	Moving betwen sand-boxes of accounts: I was playing with sand-box, then I copied it and moved it from one account to another just for the sake of an experimenting, and for the purpose of refine editing, of better editing, when I wanted to begin a new version. By the way also in my writing I do a lot of editing back and forth sometimes many many times until I find the right words.

17.	 I even asked a funny question at the Teahouse, a few weeks ago; I asked if one might delete an article he or she submits to Wikipedia, and the person who answered said "Welcome to Wikipedia…"

18.	Re. the biography I edited, I wanted someone to express his or her opinion of it, so I submitted it to review, then I regretted it, and wiped it out from the sand-box, hopping that it would not be reviewed (I did know then that the history remains even if it was deleted- this can be check as well, I guess). I Then moved to a sand-box of another account and edited a STUb bio...

19. The fact is that at the same day that the BIO was ''created"( or accepted),I submitted a STUB Bio, containing only few lines for review, at the very same day, an hour or two hours before the longer bio was created. I AM SURE THIS CAN BE CHECKED BY YOU.

20. My acts do not fit whatsoever to what is described in your socket puppetry. I am just learning and experiencing editing in Wikipedia, and doing it myself (the workshop was not so productive for myself, long lecturesand only short training), and my editions are quality based information AND MY INTENTIONS ARE GOOD, TO CONTRIBUTE FROM MY KNOWLEDGE AND SPECIALITIES. How come someone make such accusations - that will probably keep me away from wikipedia now?

THANK YOU ֱHistoire2020 (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * All four accounts are ✅ as being operated by the same editor (I added the fourth, still unused one). I'll leave evaluation of good faith to the closing admin but note that the accounts have been used alternatively a number of times in succession.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Master blocked 1 week. Socks indef'd and tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)