Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historylover4/Archive

19 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This account may be a possible sockpuppet of Historylover4, who is currently involved in an AE and will likely be sanctioned for a minimum of 6 months.. The names are very similar and he/she jumps straight into a highly controversial topic, apparently knowing (more or less, as the refs aren't proper) how to edit on Wikipedia, on articles relating to I-P (the diff above goes to his/her contributions), using a load of weasel words and personal statements. Historylover4 has also been heavily involved in I-P topics, and has been sanctioned on various occasions for it. The editor also included, among his/her edits, the words "Zionist narrative" on multiple occasions, which reminds me of the words "Zionist propagandists" that Historylover4 has been rebuked, and will likely be sanctioned for a minimum of 6 months, on his AE and talk pages.  Activism  1234  18:07, 19 August 2012 (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

 * - There are some other behaviors that are quite consistent with Historylover4, in addition to those mentioned above.l Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Checked per the obvious overlap, similarity in username, the fact that History1221 was created a couple of hours after Historylover4 got wind that he was likely to be sanctioned, and the fact that History 1221 is patently not a new user. CheckUser is not particularly helpful, so behaviour will have to determine this one. WilliamH (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Due to the obviousness of the case, and the particular circumstances, including multiple previous blocks recently, and the sock was an attempt to bypass a 6 month topic ban at AE, I have blocked Historylove4 for a period of 6 months. If someone at ArbCom decides to modify it, up or down, that is fine with me without prior notification, but a note afterwards is appreciated.  Obviously, the sock was indef blocked. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 21:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

06 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I think this pretty clear same scope and same edits for example arguing in both cases that Shofar is not reliable source and  Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:14, 6 October 2012 (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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * - Intersects alone make this a duck case, but coming from an AE enforcement ban, plus a 6 month block from me previously, I would prefer a CU to see if any matches to previous CU can be made, before I indef both of these. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Cityslicker4 is a ✅ match to Historylover4. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The 6 month block should be turned into an indefinite block now, any objections? Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * They already indeffed.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, missed that. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sock blocked, tagged, and bagged. NativeForeigner Talk 19:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Reopened, added Saruman38 as they crossover with Historylover4 (per Dougweller) and even the master Turmerick. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * is editing from a different continent than the other accounts. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. De728631 (talk) 11:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing.

17 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

As in pervious case having the same scope of articles And advocating the same things for example trying to insert same genetic research and  and here. Also interest in Cohanim/Levite genetics and In general user is interested to promote Elhiak study to various articles about Jewish genetic the same behavior like the last socks Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Just to note that I want to look at this but it's bedtime for me now so I hope this won't be dismissed before I can add my 2 cents worth. Dougweller (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * this seems fairly clear-cut, compare for instance the first edit made by Youngdro2 with this edit by Cityslicker4 . However, I would appreciate a checkuser to take a look at this just to remove any doubt. There also doesn't seem to be any harm in doing a sleeper check while we're at this. Many thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 11:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Between the technical evidence and the behavioral evidence, I'm calling this one ✅. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Tagged and bagged, so closing. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 17:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

02 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Painfully obvious based on contributions, summarys and content being added. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2013 (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
I ran a check on DNC yesterday as part of another case. Comparing the results of that check to the older checks on Historylover4 in the CU logs, DNC and Historylover4 are ❌. Different continent. T. Canens (talk) 09:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's not really enough evidence to block here. It's not painfully obvious. ( X! ·  talk )  · @882  · 20:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

19 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Jumping straight away to sub page of WP:FRINGE/N(which is not clear how the new user got there) advocating Elhiak research like last socks editing the same articles promoting the research .And advocating the same POV in other articles and  Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:54, 19 January 2013 (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
✅. AGK  [•] 13:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Tagged. Closing. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 16:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

30 May 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets



I am sorry if I did not filed my report correctly. I accused Avrahambeneliezer of being sock puppet of previously blocked user Historylover 4 and Yogorundo4. I tried to show that all the editing of this user are identical. They used same subjects regarding the genetic origin of Jews, Khazar Theory, Eran Elhaik, Y chromosome Aaron and AshkenazI Jews adding same sort of material, in same places, with same purpose. Avrahameliezer Historylover4 Youngdro2 Avrahameliezer is a new editor who started with his edits only 2 weeks ago, immediately jumping to the same controversial topics where the 2 previously caught sock-puppets had edited. He is adding the same material, same blogs with same bias and tendentious edits as the previously caught sockpuppets did. Thank you and sorry for my mistakes. I am rarely here.Tritomex (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility


 * He is continuing the manner of his previous socks vandalizing every page related to genetic origin of Jews with same texts. Jewish ethnic divisions-, Khazar theory of AJ ,Ashkenazi Jews , Genetic Studies on Jews , Khazars ....Same disruptive editing, on same subjects, with same spin....Tritomex (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Examples of sock-puppet edits

Avrahambeneliezer says "The controversial claims of 'Cohanim markers' have been widely challenged by genetic researchers from Tel Aviv University, Flinders University, the University of Pisa, and elsewhere. Flinders University geneticist Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin...."Careful examination of their [Skorecki's and Thomas's] works reveals many faults that lead to the inevitable conclusion that their claim [that most Cohenim share a common origin] has not been proven. The faults are: the definition of the studied communities, significant differences between three samples of Jewish priests, failure to use enough suitable markers to construct the Unique-Event-polymorphisms haplotypes, problematic method of calculating coalescence time and underestimating the mutation rate of Y chromosome microsatellites......The suggestion that the 'Cohen modal haplotype' is a signature haplotype for the ancient Hebrew population is also not supported by data from other populations."

Youngdro2 the already blocked sockpuppet of Historylover4 edited the same subject in 2012 and  "Ostrer's conclusions (in a newspaper) have been heavily challenged by Dr. Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin who states that past studies, like those mentioned by Ostrer, are incorrect. "Some previous studies based on classical autosomal markers concluded that EEJ are a Middle Eastern population with genetic affinities to other Jewish populations.''' The problems with these studies have been previously discussed in detail [1]. These studies used fewer markers (mostly the less reliable antigenic markers) and failed to include European Mediterranean populations"''' and "In contrast to the conclusions of several previous studies, there was no evidence for close genetic affinities among the Jewish populations or for a Middle Eastern origin for most of them. Since the study is the first to use only the more reliable protein electrophoretic markers, and an appropriately comprehensive panel of non-Jewish populations, the results are regarded as the most reliable available to date."

Avrahmbenelizer also adds to Cohanim article: " Claims of a 'Cohen' markers have been strongly challenged by genetic researchers from Flinders University, the University of Pisa, and numerous other academic institutions. Geneticist Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin from Tel Aviv University and Flinders University in Australia stated in the German journal HOMO: Journal of Comparative Human Biology Zeitschrift fuer vergleichende Biologie des Menschen" (volume 51, no. 2-3, 2000, pp. 156-162); "Careful examination oftheir [Skorecki's and Thomas's] works reveals many faults that lead to the inevitable conclusion that their claim [that most Cohenim share a common origin] has not been proven. The faults are: the definition of the studied communities, significant differences between three samples of Jewish priests, failure to use enough suitable markers to construct the Unique-Event-polymorphisms haplotypes, problematic method of calculating coalescence time and underestimating the mutation rate of Y chromosome microsatellites. The suggestion that the 'Cohen modal haplotype' is a signature haplotype for the ancient Hebrew population is also not supported by data from other populations."


 * Very similar to what Youngdro2added in 2012 "Ostrer's conclusions (in a newspaper) have been heavily challenged by Dr. Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin who states that past studies, like those mentioned by Ostrer, are incorrect. "Some previous studies based on classical autosomal markers concluded that EEJ are a Middle Eastern population with genetic affinities to other Jewish populations. The problems with these studies have been previously discussed in detail [1]. These studies used fewer markers (mostly the less reliable antigenic markers) and failed to include European Mediterranean populations" and "In contrast to the conclusions of several previous studies, there was no evidence for close genetic affinities among the Jewish populations or for a Middle Eastern origin for most of them. Since the study is the first to use only the more reliable protein electrophoretic markers, and an appropriately comprehensive panel of non-Jewish populations, the results are regarded as the most reliable available to date.".

Avrahambeneliezer states om another page (Khazar hypothesis of AJ) :'''"The controversial issue of the jocularly named 'Cohanim' or 'Cohen' studies, that focused on a minority of male Jews around the world with the surname 'Cohen' estimated to be around only 5% of all male Jews worldwide, have been widely challenged by genetic researchers from Tel Aviv University, Flinders University, the University of Pisa, and numerous others. Geneticist Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin of Flinders University stated in the German scientific journal HOMO Journal of Comparative Human Biology - Zeitschrift fuer vergleichende Biologie des Menschen" (volume 51, no. 2-3, 2000, pp. 156-162) "Careful examination of their [Skorecki's and Thomas's] works reveals many faults that lead to the inevitable conclusion that their claim [that most Cohenim share a common origin] has not been proven. The faults are: the definition of the studied communities, significant differences between three samples of Jewish priests, failure to use enough suitable markers to construct the Unique-Event-polymorphisms haplotypes, problematic method of calculating coalescence time and underestimating the mutation rate of Y chromosome microsatellites. The suggestion that the 'Cohen modal haplotype' is a signature haplotype for the ancient Hebrew population is also not supported by data from other populations."''' (p. 156) " Avrahmbeneliezer often quotes geneticists Elhaik and adds him to all pages he sees relevant. For example, the same is done by Youngdro2  , and by Historylover4  or  usually calling him "Dr.Elhaik". Please also note the similarity between texts. Another author he usually adds everywhere is Sergio Tofaneli from sockmaster Historylover4  usually titling him as "Professor Sergio Tofanelli from  University of Pisa as done by Avrahambeneliezer, always combined with criticism of Ostrer-for example ("Your little attempt at "each person to have only three children" didn't occur to Atzmon, Ostrer, and co. as they themselves said a "demographic miracle" was necessary, as no data could explain it. Avrahambeneliezer (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)") Skorecki, Thomas..Tritomex (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Explaning how accounts were used abusively

Avrhambenelizer like other socks of Historylover4 edits multiple articles which he sees as connected to the genetic origin of Jews. Some of this text have some correctly stated facts, sometimes he gives correct quotes, but all of his edits are totally tendentious, manipulative and with the opposite meaning from the written conclusions of the source he uses..Often he uses personal blogs to support his cause. The same pattern is used by every sockpupet of Historylower4. All of his focus on Wikipedia is adding claims against the shared genetic origin of Jews, in support of Khazar theory, and he is doing that in identical articles  like he did with his sock puppets 4 years ago. Please note that the Avahambeneliezer account was established only 2 weeks ago and he immediately jumped to this controversial articles, the same articles as his previous socks edited. He immediately engages in edit wars with long time editors. He reports experienced editors who are removing his blogs and claims sourced with blogs, you tube films, Wikipedia itself etc. In each and every page he edits, he is in edit war with different editors who are trying to revert his texts. In the beginning editors are trying to explain him the rules of Wikipedia, but he totally ignores them, and I am almost sure that he is deliberately engaged in disruptive editing. He brooked at least one time the 3 RR on Genetic Studies on Jews. Actually on 30th of may he reverted 12 times different editors Tritomex (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Evidences for Sock puppetry

Avrhambenelizer like other socks of Historylover often repeats the claim that Cohens are about 5% of Jews, for same reasons as stated above. A claim that he source with blogs. Youngdro2 also cross edited this claim "according to surveys of Jewish cemetery gravestones Jewish males with the last name Cohen or one of its derivatives are thought to make up about 5% of the Jewish male population of the world "

Avrahambenelizer also repeats the same claim "Controversial, jocularly named claims were first made in the late 1990s regarding a minority of individuals possessing the surname 'Cohen', thought to be around 5% of Jewish males around the world. Claims, later challenged, argued that possibly around half of males with the surname 'Cohen' around the world could have a linkage. This thesis came to be known popularly as 'Cohanim' studies" Tritomex (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * More-Avrahamambenleizer as the previous account often speaks about "demographic miracle" "divine intervention" citing incorrect numbers, sourcing it both times with same rarely known book (Of Straten) (and personal political blogs) as a justification for his claims.


 * 1) Avrahambenelizer says  "The phrase "demographic miracle" was the very wordage used by the individuals in question, because they admitted nothing could explain the impossible increase of the Ashkenazi Jewish population from 50,000 to 8 million between the 15th and 20th centuries. And astonishingly this increase would have to have been happening #despite the fact European Jews had higher death rates than their non-Jewish European neighbors, due to all the killing and pogroms they endured. And those non-Jewish Europeans very noticeably were somehow untouched by this miraculous population increasing trend! "But there are serious problems with the Rhineland Hypothesis – so serious that some of its proponents actually posited a Divine miracle to account for them. For example, the population of Eastern European Jews surged from 50,000 in the 15th century CE to about 8 million by the start of the 20th century – a birthrate 10 times greater than the local non-Jewish population that surrounded them. That implausible population surge would have had to take place despite the economic hardship, wars and pogroms that ravaged those Jewish communities, and the plague that ravaged the entire region.Your little attempt at "each person to have only three children" didn't occur to Atzmon, Ostrer, and co. as they themselves said a "demographic miracle" was necessary, as no data could explain it."


 * 1) Youngdro2 says "A major difficulty with the Rhineland Hypothesis, in addition to the lack of historical and anthropological evidence to the multi-migration waves from Palestine to Europe (Straten 2003; Sand 2009), is to explain the vast population expansion of Eastern European Jews from 50 thousand (15th century) to 8 million (20th century). The annual growth rate that accounts for this population expansion was estimated at 1.7-2%, one order of magnitude larger than that of Eastern European non-Jews in the 15th-17th centuries, prior to the industrial revolution (Straten 2007)...  it is explained by a miracle (Atzmon et al. 2010; Ostrer 2012). Unfortunately, this divine intervention explanation poses a new kind of problem - it is not science. The question how the Rhineland Hypothesis, so deeply rooted in supernatural reasoning, became the dominant scientific narrative is debated among scholars"
 * I hope I presented enough evidence.Tritomex (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Tritomex (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Vanjagenije Please revile (refile/review) my report. I hope that by now my comment is filed properly. I am unfortunately more convinced that Historylover4 is not the oldest sock master but I have no proofs for now. I am ready to face penalties if I made wrong accusation. Thank you and I am sorry for my mistakes.Tritomex (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. ''
 * Even if he's not a sock, which I didn't consider but now seems likely, he's violated 3RR and has generally been disruptive. He reverted an edit of mine for no reason other than to spite me. Why would he have made that edit otherwise? It's not a subject he edits and anyway it's rather cruel to not regard bacha bazi as child sexual abuse for "cultural context".--Monochrome _ Monitor  00:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * He also edited Kohen.--Monochrome _ Monitor  01:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've declined the CU request as only one account, Avrahambeneliezer, is not . You've presented no evidence. If don't present evidence, this case will be closed. As an aside, Historylover4 is the oldest account (don't change the master after you've filed an SPI).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * .&#32;In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  22:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The evidence presented shows the new account has a similar interest in a certain fringe theory and is going to some length to push the research of one particular geneticist, Elhaik, using the same weak sources as previous socks. There's been some time lapse since the last set of socks, but this one just happens to coincide with the recent release of a new study which includes that same geneticist, advocating the same discredited theory. . Admin: please indef block . Ivanvector 🍁  (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked per request. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User Dr.Greyhawk opened his Wikipedia account only about 10 days ago, and immediately, as all socks of Historylover4 went to the "Genetic origin of Jews" to remove RS backed criticism of controversial Elhaik papers and to add more material in support of Elhaik claims (in support of Khazar theory  of Ashkenazi Jewish origin, and the Slavic origin of Yiddish, a theory advanced by Eran Elhaik, Paul Wexler and Das, but rejected by most historians, linguists and geneticists-see )-This was exactly the same pattern used by all previous scockpuppets of user [Historylover4],  who all after creating their accounts immediately went to same article and did the same removals and additions of ELhaik papers. They removed RS backed criticism and added more material in support of Elhaik/Khazar Theory/. . At least 6 SPI investigations were conducted and every time it came out that sockpupets of Historylover4 edited the same page, with same intention and in same manner (through edit warring). This time Dr.Greyhawk  did not use the phrases, explanations  which made him caught previously, however if you check his record,  compare it to all previous socks you will find out that he does exactly same. He just reverts all other editors, and adds more Elhaik  and again  or here   while in same time removing criticism of Elhaik claims. Avrahmbeneliezr did the same f.e, , removing or distorting criticism So did Youngdro2 ,+in all other of his edits. The same pattern was used by all other socks. Its obvious that Dr.Greyhawk is not a new user, he knows some Wikipedia rules and selectively applies them. He also files reports to Edit warring noticeboard, against editors whom he sees as bigger threat and warnings to others. The same pattern was used by most of Historylover4 socks, like User Avrahambeneliezer. If you look into the contribution of Historylover4 socks, like Avrahambeneliezer  and Dr.Greyhawk, you will find out that he has identical focuses, he adds  identical authors, removes identical materials that does not fit his agenda,  and promotes identical theories. Tritomex (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea whether Dr.Greyhawk is an old or new editor. However, the edits made by Dr.Greyhawk to Genetic studies on Jews (a long-term obsession of the reporter Tritomex) can be adequately explained as someone attempting to improve a very poor article. For example, Dr.Greyhawk removed from the lead a claim sourced (incorrectly) to a polemic speech of a businessman who owns a private DNA-testing company, which nobody who ever read RS could reasonably claim to be reliable. Dr.Greyhawk also removed a completely ridiculous amount of negative commentary on one researcher that is an obvious NPOV violation. Here Dr.Greyhawk removed too much and should have merely removed the irrelevant parts (that not about genetics at all) and summarised the rest, but the judgement that something had to be done was correct. I'm not at all surprised if other editors in the past saw the same problems and tried to fix them in similar ways. Zerotalk 06:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment by Zero0000

Note that the reporter Tritomex didn't bother to inform Dr.Greyhawk about this case. Having known Tritomex for a long time, I'm not surprised. Please allow Dr.Greyhawk a reasonable time to respond. Zerotalk 06:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no obligation whatsoever to notify user about SPI.--Shrike (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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

This user is accusing me of being someone from over 5 years ago according to the archive. That's ridiculous in itself and it looks like he already falsely accused someone else in 2016. The real reason he is making this report is this: "If an accusation on this page is 'bad faith' (an editor making a fake case for an 'attack' or to prevent their own editing being examined) ..." I don't see how he can just assume that I'm another user (from 5 years ago nonetheless) simply because I tried to remove an erroneous statement and tried to bring the article back to a more neutral POV. In fact I'm surprised more users haven't tried to fix those obvious problems in the article within those 5 years. I'm sure he is ready to equally attack anyone else willing to correct the intentional misinformation and bias/POV he is propping up and guarding on that page. Like Zero0000 said above, I may have removed a bit too much information out of laziness but the majority of it was opinion and commentary; I still made a net positive contribution to the accuracy, neutrality, and integrity of the article. The main reason why that page is so long and cluttered is because it is full of opinions and conjecture for the purpose of interpreting studies and results with a certain POV or to appeal to a certain narrative. When it comes to the clearly false statement he kept reverting even after discussion and warnings, I can't see how he can get away with that. Not only was the source unreliable but the source didn't even back up the statement in the first place, yet the statement is still standing and the user has been ruled as not having committed any violations. I literally did what any normal user would and should have done.

Also for the record, I'm clearly not the user that he is accusing me of being, you can check my IP or whatever else necessary. Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

First, let me try to shortly explain the subject, than I will respond to Zero000. The researchers you mentioned is Eran Elhaik, Paul Wexler and Sand, all three knowing to be almost the solo advocates the Khazar theory of AJ, in their respective fields. Two of three authors are not even geneticists, (Wexler is linguist, and Sand is French history expert) and the study itself is based primarily on linguistics, however it is included in multiple places in this article (Genetiic studies of Jews). Wexler theory (alone in linguistics he advocates the Slavic origin of Yiddish) is seen as fringe by all linguists known to me. Before few years they came out with a combined theory, published in peer-reviewed journal which in short claims that Ashkeanzi Jews are converted  Khazars who adopted Slavic language in nowadays region of Iran and  latter Germanized  it into  Yiddish. All three of them are considered highly contraversial by almost entire scientific world even before this studies. Sand book, "The invention of Jewish" people was criticized by many historians, including Israel Bartal, Simon Schama, Shmuel Rosner, Carlo Strenger, Anita Shapira, Daniel Lazare, Steven Weitzman, Hillel Halkin and many others. Wexler theory of Yiddish was rejected by virtually all academic linguists. Their combined study was criticized as unscientific by leading Yiddish experts as Dovid Katz, Marion Aptroot (University of Düsseldorf) who in peer-reviewed study claimed that the Elhaik study failed short of scientific standards. Alexei Kassian (Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences) in peer-reviewed response,Shaul Stampfer, Sergio Della Pergola, leading historic demographer of Jews, who together with Katz rejected the entire study, as falsification. In joint study published in 2016 by Genome Biology and Evolution, Pavel Flegontov from Department of Biology and Ecology, Faculty of Science, University of Ostrava, Czech Republic, A.A. Kharkevich Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Mark G. Thomas from Research Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, UK, Valentina Fedchenko from Saint Petersburg State University, and George Starostin from Russian State University for the Humanities, dismissed both the genetic and linguistic components of Elhaik et al, claiming that the authors tried to fit together marginal and unsupported linguistic and historic theories with incorrect genetic datas and by using self invented "genetic provenancing approach, GPS, which would place Italians and Spaniards into Greece, all Tunisians and some Kuwaitis would be placed in the Mediterranean Sea, all Greeks were positioned in Bulgaria and in the Black Sea, and all Lebanese were scattered along a line connecting Egypt and the Caucasus;"Some leading genetic experts of Jews with many peer-reviewed publcations like Marcus Feldman,Doron Behar,Harry Ostrer, also criticized the methodology of the authors. There are many additional critics of the scientific approach of this study. Some of them are not even included in the article. Now, It can be argued that Bennett Greenspan, the founder of Family tree DNA, claim has nothing to do in this article as he is not geneticists and I would agree. However the same goes for Wexler, Sand and many others who are also not geneticists. I did not reported Dr.Greyhawk because he removed many times the Greenspan quote, but because after just 10 days of his account, in same manner like all 6 previous socks of historylover 4, he came to this specific article and started removing criticism of Elhaik while adding more material in support of Elhaik, through edit warring. He used same patterns, same article, same study and showed same behaviour as all previiious socks.. This additions/removals would create an impression that the views of Elhaik, Sand and Wexler are generally accepted, which is the opposite of true. This was also the intention of all previous socks. In many instances of sockpupetry, unfortunately Zero0000 came out in defense of sockpuppet additions. This was the case with Youngdro2 sock Zerotalk 00:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC),. Zerotalk 08:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC) f.e Many times the socks  used Zero0000 words as justification for their action;  for example Youngdro2  wrote:"'As editor 'Zero0000' stated 'I only want to say that the paper of Elhaik is now published by a prestigious scientific journal and it is completely impossible to rule out its inclusion by Wikipedia rules. Again, echoing 'Zero0000', the ONLY legitimate reason that was ever being given to not allow Elhaik's study to be included in the past was that it was previously only a preprint in arXiv [15] it is AGAIN now published in as 'Zero0000' noted 'a prestigious scientific journal'" (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Finally, the only reason why I reported Dr.Greyhawk is becuase as all socks of Historylover4, '''1)immediatly after he created his account, he went to Genetic origin of Jews article (as all socks did), 2)started immediately to add more materials in support of Elhaik theory,(as all socks did), 3)reverted all other editors (as all socks did), 4)removed criticism of Elhaik (as all socks did). 5) Engaged in edit warring (as all socks did)''' The fact that he again got defense from Zero000, I see only as unfortunate coincidence.Tritomex (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment by Tritomex
 * Greyhawk has no objections to having his IP profile examined, so Tritomex's request finds no opposition, and should for the sake of his equanimity, be pursued. At the same time, Tritomex is an adamant POV pusher for the view that all Jews descend from an origitive population in Palestine/Israel, and has been all over these articles for years adding indiscriminately trashy news reports and some partisan genetic papers to buttress that theory by smearing any academic challenging it. The account he gives above is illegible. As Zero, following many geneticists, noted: all humans can be argued, in statistical terms, to have some trace of a middle eastern origin going back 2,600 years, and the nonsense even serious POV genetic papers push is that this general principle (enunciated in serious scholarship) is restricted to Jews, in order to prove the doctrine that Israel's population is involved in a 'return' to its roots. Elhaik is a front-ranking genetics theorist, was born, raised, and academically qualified in Israel, and went on to study under Dan Graur, with the same background and one of the most rigorous, toughest cookies in that field, and they continue to collaborate. They believe that genetics in this area are compromised by nationalist tripe, spinning data to prove a Zionist theorum. To ignore this, and plunk down mindless smearing of him by people who have no competence to judge the technicalities is an abuse of Wikipedia's neutrality. Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, I am not any sort of "POV pusher" and this accusations went beyond WP:CIVIL. Unlike you, I was not topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict area. The same goes for "Zionist theorum". I never added (not intentionally) any unreliable  any non per-reviewed source to any of this article. I challenge  you to show what I did. Nishidani, Unlike ZeroOOO, who did it just few times,  you in all  instances came out in defense of Historylover4 and  additions of his socks. I can show dozens of cases from multiple articles related to genetic origin of Jews when you defended,  reverted, reinstalled the additions of this socks. For years, it has become a pattern. As for the comment of ZeroOOO, that I didn't notify Dr.Greyhawk,I did  Tritomex (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So now, not only an admin (Zero), but even the humble peon Nishidani is a sock meatpuppet for Historylover4? Ridiculous, bordering on paranoia.Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I nowhere said that Zero is a puppetmaster for Historylover4 (which of course is NOT the case) please do not distort my words. If you deny that you regularly (Zero000, occasionally) reinstalled additions of Historylover4 socks in multiple pages+defended his reverts, in regard to Khazar origin of Jews,  Elhaik and Jewish genetic origin, I can post tens of diffs, but it really seems a waste of time, as you know that this was the case for years. As for POV pushing accusations labeled on me, can you please remaind me what was the reason of your toppic bann and what you exactly wrote about Jews?.Tritomex (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have never written anything about 'Jews' - for 11 years I have argued that they are no exception to the rule that 'ethnic ontologies' are conceptually void, phantasms, and cannot be conjured back into existence by genetic patterning. An inability to understand this elementary principle - that all nationalities are a sum of diversities - causes most of the problems in genetics and national articles. It is news to me that, rather than diligently going through the relevant sources, I am said to have followed History whoever and reverted back material he introduced. Post your diffs by all means. This is an evidence-based page not a forum.Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean you have never added an unreliable, non peer-reviewed source to this article? This is literally what you kept doing right here. Not only was that article from Ha'aretz non-scientific and unreliable but it didn't even back up the statement that it was intended to. Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * See how hard he is trying to push a certain point of view in the article? His whole comment is subjective and is all about his opinions and criticisms about some studies that he doesn't like. By the way, some of what he said is lies, the most recent study isn't based on linguistics, it was also based on residual genetics which the results had been included but then quickly removed by him or his other friend Shrike. Normally objective scientific studies and their results would have precedence over opinions and criticisms when being included in the article but it seems that the science is not acceptable for Tritomex's narrative. In fact, this counterproductive and sabotaging behaviour should warrant some kind of block/ban in itself. He falsely accuses me of being the user "historylover" but . Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not the right page for arguing the topic.Nishidani (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * , any thoughts? --Neil N  talk to me 01:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Before this goes too far off the rails, note that the clerks will decide when a CheckUser is warranted, not a mob of editors. It's not possible here anyway, all of the past socks are . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @All of you: this is not the place to argue your content dispute. Take it to the article's talk page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As for the rest, if the article is in need of cleanup, please pursue that on the article's talk page, and remember that dispute resolution is available. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

For the record. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:15, 15 April 2018 (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

 * ✅ to :
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)