Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VivaWikipedia/Archive

17 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User Vatan79 was created in 29 may but he is not a new user he have a good knowledge of Wikipedia markup for example. Further evidence that connect him to Viva
 * 1) Edits the same obscure articles
 * 2) Jumped almost right away in to WP:ARBPIA topic area to advocate one side of the conflict for example
 * VivaWikipedia-,
 * Vatan79 -
 * 3. Have the same interest in 9/11 conspiracy theory
 * VivaWikipedia -
 * Vatan79 -

The reason that the sock was created is to avoid WP:SCRUTINY as viva already was blocked for edit warring and recieved WP:ARBPIA warning. Shrike (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Kazemzad was not a separate account; it was my username before I renamed it to VivaWikipedia, and the username change log should corroborate this. My editing interest is not limited to the Israel-Palestine (I/P) topic area, so for organization purposes I created a separate account (Vatan79) to use to make edits in non I/P areas as well as occasionally minor or uncontroversial edits in the I/P area; up until now, I had no idea that this could be construed as remotely illegal. Regardless, I believe that there has been a misinterpretation of the evidence, as I did not use the second account to try to evade sanctions.

What is claimed as using the second account to “advocate one side of the conflict for example” is me citing straightforward WP policy on a talk page to reach a conclusion that was later met by group consensus as you can see here. If I had intentionally abused a sock to advocate my own beliefs, the evidence would have been much more damning than a diff showing me reciting WP policy.

Here is a list of all the pages that have been edited with the secondary account, Vatan79, and that could be remotely related to the I/P topic area (and therefore subject to ARBPIA sanctions).
 * Breaking the Silence: made no edits, just asked a question in the talk page
 * Israel vs Israel: made minor edits, such as adding “the,” "freelance," “a,” and adding a Wiklink; ; added screening locations and awards that the film has won, as supported by sources; ; also, this article is not formally recognized as part of the I/P area
 * The Invention of the Jewish People: added straightforward information about languages the book has been translated into, with sources and ; changed “was” to “Was”
 * Nurit Peled-Elhanan: grammar changes such as removing an unnecessary comma, changing "Professor" to "professor", changing "an" to "a" ; adding a statement about her recently published book  ; adding publication date of book ; changing awkward wording while maintaining content ; clarifying a statement ; noting a prize, providing a source, and providing explanation on talk page   ; reverting with explanation ; removing contentious label from lead, with explanation ; italicizing a book title ; and thanking a user for providing a Hebrew translation.

Furthermore, does this look like a comment made by somebody trying to avoid sanctions with a sock?  I see now that I should have linked the two accounts, but please take another look at the case, as I did not try to intentionally violate WP policy. VivaWikipedia (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It was not just uncontroversial changes you was in content dispute at Nurit Peled-Elhanan morever you also did edit with you main account and sock in problematic areas like WP:ARB911 --Shrike (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "It was not just uncontroversial changes you was in content dispute at Nurit Peled-Elhanan ." I stated this clearly above, but I will state it again now: this engagement in "content dispute" is me expressing my view that we should not use a contentious label in the biography of a living person in this instance, and citing WP policy as my reasoning. And as I stated, this coincided with group consensus.  If I had intentionally abused a sock to advocate my own beliefs as claimed, the evidence would have been much more damning than a diff showing me reciting WP policy. And the only 9/11 article that I edited with this account was 911: In Plane Sight, which does not have a 9/11 sanctions warning on it nor do I have the benefit of having 4,280 live edits under my belt like you to know all of the nuances of WP policy. Furthermore, there's no reason for me to have used socking to evade sanctions there since I have never engaged in disruptive behavior in the 9/11 area to have received any warnings about it. VivaWikipedia (talk) 06:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Definite socking to evade sanctions going on here. is the oldest account; Vatan79 and VivaWikipedia are ✅ socks. WilliamH (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)