Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/69.86.16.239


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Ali doostzadeh

 * Evidence
 * User 69.86.16.239 works in tandem with Ali doostzadeh in eliminating any classical citation or fact contradicting Scytho-Iranian hypothesis. This pattern is repetitive, while Ali doostzadeh vandalises a part of an article, 69.86.16.239 vandalises another part, until no trace of contribution remains. This tandem process is intendended to prevent the contents from scrutiny of the community. Ali doostzadeh created other sock puppets in the past to circumvent rv rules and create impression that users other then militant Iranian nationalists participate in vandalizing the contents
 * After I repeatedly asked Ali doostzadeh to stop vandalising the contents, and posted vandalism warning, the deletions were switched to other users, User 69.86.16.239 being one of them.
 * Comments
 * No need to suspect.. it is me when I forget to log in. And furthermore the IP number was not in anyway responsible for the closing of your falsified topic.  The fact that one of your topics was closed because it was non-scholarly shows that you are the militant nationalistic pan-Turkic vandalizing articles.    It is you that is vandalizing articles with false materials.  For example in Ossetic you falsified that Ossetic is agglunitative.  In Scythian you falsified that Agathyrsi is a Scythian tribe.  Indeed one of your false articles was deleted by the administrators of the site for lack of reliable material .  Not by me, but by the administrators because of lack of reliable evidence.  You don't seem to understand that wikipedia is not a forum where you can cut & paste material from your site  which is full of false information claiming every ancient group in the world (from ancient greeks to summerians to ..) as Turks.  So I refuted your material and you don't seem to understand that WIKIPEDIA has a policy of  and if your stuff on history is whack and  non-academic (that is not accepted by mainstream scholars universally), then  it could be deleted.  So stop the irrelevant cut & paste and destruction of Wikipedia's integrity with your pan-turkist website:  --Ali doostzadeh 19:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Using " non-academic (that is not accepted by mainstream scholars universally)" criteria is vandalism, since you do not provide a verifiable codification on which academic is academic and which is non-academic, what is "unniversally" and which world falls out of your definition of "universally". Using personal definition of your group to justify vadalism, and calling names and attacking messangers as excuse for vandalism is vandalism and sockpuppet censorship vandalism prevents the community from scrutinizing the issue.

Barefact 16:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC).


 * I certainly do. I made you a challenge in the other thread to give me an example of a scholar from a major university who has publications in peer reviewed journals and has numerous publications on Ossetic language that claims that Ossetic is a non-Iranian language.  You failed miserably.  The same thing on Scythians.  You were also using many false sources.  I am sure you have heared of Harvard, Oxford,.. universities.  So stop trying to act like a cow boy historian.  The contents of your website is certainly not academic.  As per the term universal, you used the term yourself .  You said in one of your false articles trying to reject the scholarly viewpoint,  The following discourse addresses the reasons for the current universal acceptance by the scientific community of the preposition that the Scythians were unambiguously Indo-European, and specifically Iranian speaking, and the methods to reach this conclusion..   Note you are trying to present original research when you yourself admit that your OR goes against universally accepted facts.  So you are caught plagarizing materials with OR.  --Ali doostzadeh 16:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Take this to WP:RFCU. Iola k ana |T  12:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)