Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress/Archive


Middayexpress

Middayexpress (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

18 February 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


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

Middayexpress is topic banned from Somalia-related articles per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#WP:NPA breech following NPOV, THIRDPARTY breeches. Following that, Middayexpress quit Wikipedia (there was also subsequently evidence that he/she was canvassing on an external forum - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#Middayexpress's external canvassing). Middayexpress was always a very tenacious editor, and I've long thought it unlikely that they would quit Wikipedia in the way that they appeared to have done.

Compare Middayexpress and Soupforone's editing behaviour here. There's a lot of overlap between the articles they edit, but that's not exactly incriminating on its own. However, I started to click on some of the "timeline" links there. With many of the articles, Soupforone doesn't seem to have edited them even once before Middayexpress was topic banned. Then, several months after Midday has been gone (long enough to avoid raising suspicions?), Soupforone becomes an active editor of them. It seems to be that Midday could have been operating the Soupforone account before being topic banned, using it for different topics, or alternatively that the person behind the Soupforone account has given Midday access to it since the topic ban.

  • Take the article on Somalia, for example: here.
  • It's the same with Somalis in the UK: here.
  • ...and Somali Canadians: here.
  • ...and Languages of Africa: here.
  • ...and Talk:Black British: here.
  • ...and Hijab: here.
  • ...and so on.

There are also similarities in writing style, with some shared and unusual phrasing, such as "per the actual XXX policy". Compare this with this, for example.

Also, Midday and Soupforone appear to be the only two editors to have ever used the phrase "per the actual template parameter" on talk pages: see this.

They both use "neutralize" as an edit summary: compare this, this, this and this, for example.

Both editors frequently make double edits. First, they make a significant edit, which is then followed by an immediate minor change such as adding an extra space or closing space up. This appears to be the case over hundreds of edits, but here are some examples: this and this.

They both have detailed knowledge of haplogroups, as demonstrated in many places, including at Talk:Somalis/Archive 4#POV & OR and Talk:Somalis/Archive 6#IP vandalism.

Finally, both frequently reach out to AcidSnow for input/advice (see User talk:AcidSnow). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of Middayexpress's tactics for keeping material that they did not like out of articles about Somalia-related topics was to claim that WP:BLPGROUP applied to large populations (which it doesn't). See here, for example. Soupforone floats the same idea in a discussion about Amharas here. Middayexpress also used WP:REDFLAG to remove material based on high-quality, peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles (e.g. here), as I noted in the discussion leading to his topic ban. Soupforone also seems keen on using REDFLAG as justification for removing sourced material that does not match their POV, as noted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive944#User:Soupforone, personal attack_and_related incidents (there's also some discussion of BLPGROUP there). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both Middayexpress (here) and Soupforone (here) attempt to veto use of sources on the grounds that they are "Afrocentric". Cordless Larry (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • My interactions with Soupforone have been conflicting for the most part since we rarely agreed upon anything. Nonetheless he is a productive editor.
In addition, Soupforone has only reached out to me twice. This is due to being one of the few editors on the Somali project. Even then, I never gave full input (or responded at all) due to being busy.
In my opinion, I don't think they are Middayexpress since they don't have the same stances on many topics that we have discussed. AcidSnow (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The case presented by Cordless Larry and behavioural evidence cited is very compelling. I would like to add a few things:
- The volume of edits pre Middayexpress' block:
As Cordless Larry presented above, Soupforone became active in editing many articles previously edited by Middayexpress following the latter's block. An interesting metric to look at is Soupforone's volume of edits pre and post Middayexpress' block. Soupforone had a much smaller output in terms of edits than Middayexpress prior to the block. Whereas Middayexpress has always been a prolific editor. This relatively smaller output by Soupforone continued for a period of 8 years between 2008 (registration) to 2015 (block of Middayexpress). Shortly after the permanent block of Middayexpress, Soupforone's edit count and output per year ballooned to match that of Middayexpress. This can be observed in this visual [1] (the screenshot is from the two editors' profiles here [2] and [3]).
- The dates of registrations on the two accounts:
According to [4] and [5]:
Soupforone made their first edit on 01/06/2008
Middayexpress made their first edit on 14/06/2008
The two dates are suspiciously close given the timeline presented by Cordless Larry, as well as similar editing style/behaviour/language.
- Cordless Larry also mentioned their use of specific phrasing, such as "per the actual template parameter". It appears that they were not only the only ones to use that exact wording on the talk pages [6], but they are also the only usages of that exact string anywhere on the internet [7], that is indeed extremely unusual. I think the behavioural evidence linking Soupforone and Middayexpress in this case is very compelling. --Kzl55 (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Middayexpress is currently under editing restrictions arising from this ANI thread, in which is was observed that they may or may not be using off site canvassing to advance a particular position. It is therefore possible that even if Soupforone is not a Middayexpress sock they could be working together to advance a particular agenda. I urge the SPI investigation group to take this into account when looking through the case. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editors that have been editing Wikipedia for a long time will often have some editor interaction overlap just from having visited many pages (for example, the prolific Doug Weller and myself [8]). They will develop common timesaving shortcuts and unofficial shorthand to facilitate the editing process, such as rmv or rm for remove, neutralize [9], and per the [10] ("per the template parameter" appears on Template:Search link). This is not unusual, and is to be found among most veteran editors. What I can say is that I am not socking or meatpuppeting for or with any individual. Many if not most pages I edit are actually related to the Maghreb and Christianity. This is why I have a high editor interaction overlap with the regulars on those pages, such as the user Aṭlas [11]. I have edited more Horn of Africa pages of late not because I have of some undeclared connection, but rather because there seems to be a less intense presence on those pages now. Also, AcidSnow is not exactly someone I go to frequently for advice. More like someone who appears to be knowledgeable in this area, but whose opinion often differs from my own. I would nonetheless also generally describe his work as valuable. Soupforone (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the exact phrase referenced by Cordless Larry was "per the actual template parameter", which appears to have only been used by yourself and Middayexpress, not only on Wikipedia [12], but across all pages indexed by Google [13].--Kzl55 (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That Google link doesn't appear to provide any results-- "No results found for "per the actual template parameter". Variations of "per the actual x" are also relatively common on Wikipedia [14]. Soupforone (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the point. No one else apart from you and Middayexpress has used the exact phrase "per the actual template parameter", anywhere on the internet. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well then it's not a particularly good point since Google does not actually show that [15], nor does a Bing [16] or Yahoo search for that matter [17]. Soupforone (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is very clear. The exact phrase "per the actual template parameter" is only ever used by yourself and Middayexpress on Wikipedia [18]. This phrase is not used by anyone else on the internet [19]. That is also confirmed by your Bing and Yahoo links. --Kzl55 (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. When using a different search landing page, Google actually produces one result for "per the actual template parameter example" (what I Soupforone actually wrote [20]). Had only two editors on the internet ever used the phrase "per the actual template parameter", it should show only two such results. However, it does not because the simple addition of the word "example" to the string "per the actual template parameter" changed the Google algorithm's potentially accessible indexed pages. Ergo, adding any other words to "per the actual template parameter" (and there are billions of words) could just as easily produce other results with that base string. Soupforone (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay on topic. We have a specific phrase "per the actual template parameter", it was only ever used by yourself and Middayexpress on Wikipedia [21], this specific phrase is not used by anyone else on the internet [22]. This is also confirmed by your Bing and Yahoo links. This is very unusual. If you have any evidence of other uses of the specific phrase "per the actual template parameter" (without changing the phrase by adding other words) then please share--Kzl55 (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No violation of WP:SOCK. Only 5,000 bytes of SPI posted with mostly commentaries. These two users have very different timings and different writing style. No doubt they are two different persons. Middayexpress used edit summaries more often. Soupforone is a long term editor who dealt with disruptive socks like Ms Sarah Welch.[23] Middayexpress never had the same feud. Since Soupforone has been editing same topics much before topic ban on Middayexpress, it is obvious that he will share some same particular views and take assistance of editors who are knowledgeable in the field. This subject has lost an highly active editor like Middayexpress and AcidSnow is very inactive too now, that's why Soupforone is editing a little more often now. Lorstaking (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some characteristics seem similar, but it hasn't been demonstrated how Soupforone's edits are abusive per any sanctionable criteria. Per point (2) at the top, abuse must be demonstrated and this does not seem to be the case. Also editors do learn from each other and I have learned from Soupforone as I have from other seasoned editors. I don't get why some editors like Middayexpress and Soupforone persisently delete the /* Section name */ preamble in their edits as this makes it harder to follow edit history, but that's a question of style and helpfulness, not sanctionable abuse. AadaamS (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case it wasn't clear, the abuse is topic ban evasion. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:PROXYING carefully. Do you have issues with content of Soupforone that he is not "able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive"? Lorstaking (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if Soupforone wants to inform us that he/she is being directed to edit by Middayexpress and is able to show that the changes are productive, then we can listen to that case, but I haven't seen such a declaration of directed editing from Soupforone. I suppose it is possible that Middayexpress is directing Soupforone, but the most likely explanation for me is sockpuppetry. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If ME was banned for abusive behavior when editing and Soupforone does not engage in any abusive behavior when editing, that would be an argument towards that they they, in fact, behave differently. AadaamS (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of problematic behaviour, one example was a name-change request by Soupforone for a file stating that its source does not specify ethnicity or clan the skull owner belonged to [24], this is despite the cited source clearly stating both [25]. What was particularly problematic about that edit was their removal of relevant information from the file including description as well as categories and replacement with 'fossils' [26], they have also repeatedly removed the file from the article [27], [28] (again, both ethnicity and clan of victims are stated in source). This resulted in this Common's Administrator's Noticeboard discussion [29], where the community agreed the behaviour was disruptive. They only managed to escape sanctions after acknowledgement of their mistake and promising to cease that behaviour.--Kzl55 (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is not Wikipedia, nor is a warning on Commons regarding a photograph equivalent to socking or meatpuppeting. WP:BADSOCK lists the actual inappropriate multiple account usage criteria for Wikipedia, none of which apply. Soupforone (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AadaamS' comment above did not mention socking or meatpuppeting, it referenced problematic behaviour by Middayexpress. As such an example of problematic behaviour, which was deemed disruptive by the community, was cited.--Kzl55 (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BADSOCK oversees what actually comprises inappropriate uses of alternative accounts (not other stuff). None of its stipulations apply. Soupforone (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking through their history, it appears Soupforone has not made any edits to Somali articles frequently edited by Middayexpress whilst Middayexpress was still active. This is despite an overlap of several years (both editors posted their first edits two weeks apart in June 2008). Only once Middayexpress was topic-banned did edits by Soupforone start appearing in the project, to the point now where they are one of the top contributors on many of its articles. Their first edit of the Somalis page for instance, came a few months following the topic ban of Middayexpress and (among other things) restored a collage ([30]) originally uploaded by Middayexpress [31]. They are currently listed 2nd in the top editors list of that page (1st place taken by Middayexpress). Furthermore, looking through the list of top edited pages of Middayexpress [32]:
  • Somalia: Soupforone appears on both the top editor and authorship lists [33] (coming 2nd to Middayexpress for authorship).
  • Somalis: Soupforone appears on both the top editor and authorship lists [34] (coming 2nd to Middayexpress on both).
  • Mogadishu: Soupforone appears on both the top editor and authorship lists [35].
  • Somaliland: Soupforone appears on both the top editor and authorship lists [36] (coming 3rd after Middayexpress' 2nd place for authorship).
  • Puntland: Soupforone appears on both the top editor and authorship lists [37] (coming 3rd in the top editors' list)
  • Somalis in the UK: Soupforone appears on both the top editor and authorship lists [38] (coming 3rd after Middayexpress' 2nd place for authorship).
  • Iman: Soupforone appears on both the top editor and authorship lists [39] (coming 2nd to Middayexpress for both top editors and authorship).
Out of the 9 top edited pages of Middayexpress [40], Soupforone is a top contributor of 7. The shift from not editing in the section at all whilst Middayexpress was active, to being an active top contributor on most of the top edited pages of Middayexpress is very unusual. Especially given the significant overlap in editing between the two (both started editing in 2008, yet Soupforone only became active in the section following the topic-ban of Middayexpress in 2015, becoming a top contributor on most articles of interest to Middayexpress since then). What makes the case even more compelling is the marked change in the volume of edits by Soupforone as discussed above [41], where they went from averaging 867 edits per year (2008-2015 the year of Middayexpress' topic-ban) to making 12,739 edits in 2016 and 17,291 edits in 2017 (matching the high volume of edits of Middayexpress prior to ban e.g 18,050 in 2014). To put it in a different way, the number of edits made by Soupforone in 2016 alone (the 1st year after Middayexpress was topic banned) is double their total number edits for the previous 8 years (2008-2015) combined--Kzl55 (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting spin on a handful of edits/pages. However, that is not what the global statistics actually indicate:

  • General statistics
    • Completely different number of average edits per day: 11.3 [42] vs. 44.9 [43]
    • Completely different total pages edited: 5,972 [44] vs. 24,187 [45]
    • Completely different number of edits with summaries: 15,373 (38.4%) [46] vs. 66,806 (60.1%) [47]
    • Completely different number of minor edits: 87 (0.2%) [48] vs. 33,238 (29.9%) [49]
  • Month counts
    • Completely different monthly edit counts: slow and steady rise in edit counts [50] vs. streaky editing periods with a peak in 2010 [51]
  • Time card
    • Completely different edit times and durations: relatively brief edit durations of primarily 1 hour's length with two peak periods around 4:00 UTC & 16:00 UTC [52] vs. long edit durations of around 6 hours' length with one peak period between 16:00-22:00 UTC [53]
  • Top edited pages
    • 8 out of 9 top edited pages are different
    • 8 out of 9 top edited talk pages are different
    • Completely different userspace edits: <10 userspace edits with no subpage edits [54] vs. 48 userspace edits with many subpage edits [55]
    • Completely different number of user talkpage edits: 404 [56] vs. 1,795 [57]
    • 7 out of 9 user talk edits are to different pages
    • Completely different top edited template and category pages
    • Completely different top portal edits: 0 [58] vs. 34 [59]

Those are the actual global statistics. Soupforone (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to go into a back and forth about this. Your comment above does not explain the points raised in the comment you are replying to, namely:
  1. The dramatic change in the volume of your edits pre and post topic ban of Middayexpress. You went from averaging 867 edits per year (2008-2015 the year of Middayexpress' topic-ban) to making 12,739 edits in 2016 and 17,291 edits in 2017 (matching the high volume of edits of Middayexpress prior to ban).
  2. That you did not make any edits to Somali articles frequently edited by Middayexpress whilst they were still active despite being on the site for 7 years (both of you made your first edits weeks apart on June 2008). You only started editing on the project following the topic ban, which lead to...
  3. You becoming one of the top contributors on 7 of the 9 top edited pages of Middayexpress (having shown no interest prior to their topic-ban).--Kzl55 (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) & (2) -- I already explained this above. I noticed less editing and increased vandalism on the Somalia pages, so I stepped in to monitor things on that WikiProject's two primary pages. It appears that you also registered your account during this interim period, so this should not be difficult to comprehend. (3) Incorrect. What the global statistics actually show is that 8 out of 9 top edited pages and 8 out of 9 top edited talk pages were/are different [60] [61]. Soupforone (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you’ve not explained any of the points raised. (1) & (2) -- You’ve become interested in the project only after the topic-ban of Middayexpress, to the point where you’ve become one of the top contributors on many of its articles. This is very unusual on its own considering you’ve spent 7 years on the site prior to the ban without showing much interest. But there is also the very dramatic change in the volume of edits you made, as prior to the ban you averaged 867 edits per year (2008-2015 when ME was banned) whilst Middayexpress averaged 14,591 edits (2008-2014 the last full year on which that account was used). It is indeed very unusual that you went from making 1550 edits prior to ME's ban to making 12,739 edits the first year following their topic-ban (this visual illustrates the point [62]. As for (3) -- If you check the statistics page of Middayexpress [63], you will find that their top edited pages are: Somalia, Somalis, French Montana, Mogadishu, Somaliland, Al-Shabaab, Puntland, Somalis in the UK and Iman. You are one of the top contributors on 7 out of these 9 top edited pages of Middayexpress, again very unusual (having shown no interest prior to their topic-ban)--Kzl55 (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) & (2) I actually did explain this above-- "I have edited more Horn of Africa pages of late not because I have of some undeclared connection, but rather because there seems to be a less intense presence on those pages now". (3) Page overlap is common among veteran editors. A handful of top edited pages that this individual and I happen to share also does not alter the fact that the great majority of our total edited pages were/are different. Pages such as Berbers, Demographics of Tunisia, Languages of Mauritania, Gafsa Archaeological Museum and Tin Hinan Tomb. Hence, why the actual global statistics indicate that 8 out of 9 top edited pages and 8 out of 9 top edited talk pages are different [64] [65]. Soupforone (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) & (2) -- There being "...less intense presence on those pages now" does not explain you suddenly becoming interested in the project only after the topic-ban of Middayexpress (just a single editor), especially as you've not shown much interest in the 7 years you've been on the site prior. And if it did, it wouldnt explain going from no interest (prior to the ban) to being one of the top contributors (like Middayexpress was) on many of its articles. And it certainly does not explain the very dramatic change in the volume of your edits to match the high output of Middayexpress prior to their ban (going from making 1550 edits prior to ME's ban to making 12,739 edits the first year following their topic-ban). I will leave it there as I am, understandably, not expecting you to agree with me on this. As for (3), you are incorrect, the statistics page is clear [66], you will find that their top edited pages are: Somalia, Somalis, French Montana, Mogadishu, Somaliland, Al-Shabaab, Puntland, Somalis in the UK and Iman. You are one of the top contributors on 7 out of these 9 top edited pages of Middayexpress, this is the list in visual form as it appears on the statistics page [67]. We are not talking about page overlap only, you have gone from no interest prior to the topic ban of Middayexpress to being one of the top contributors on 7 out of their top 9 edited pages.--Kzl55 (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(1) & (2) As Lorstaking explained above, that one editor was the heart of the Somalia WikiProject. When they stopped editing, there was a large void on the WikiProject and seemingly increased vandalism, so I stepped in to monitor things. The increased output is because I began editing twice briefly on most days rather than just once, and primarily to other pages as the global statistics show. (3) You are confusing top edited pages with total edited pages. As per the global statistics and comparison tool, that editor has 24,187 total pages edited, of which only 526 are to pages actually shared with me. The remaining 23,661 (~97.8%) pages that the individual has edited I have not even edited. And of their actual top 9 edited pages, only 1 is in my top 9 edited pages [68] [69]. That is a world of difference. Soupforone (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are going in circles here. I do not wish to keep going back and forth, but you have not provided an adequate explanation. (1) & (2) Citing the topic-ban of a single user (however prolific) for your marked change in behaviour going from not showing much interest in the project (for 7 consecutive years), to becoming one of the top contributors on many of its articles does not seem to be a sufficient explanation. Neither does it explain you being a top contributor on 7 of their 9 top edited pages. Furthermore, It does not explain the very dramatic change in your output (to match that of Middayexpress), going from making 1550 edits prior to their ban to 12,739 edits the first year following the ban. Editing twice does not increase your output 8 fold. As stated above the number of edits you made in 2016 alone (the 1st year after Middayexpress was topic banned) was double your total number of edits for the previous 7 years combined (2008-2015), this is very unusual. This new high output is relevant as it matches the high output Middayexpress was known for (as illustrated by this visual [70]). (3) You are incorrect. I am using the top edited pages exactly as they appear on the statistics page of Middayexpress [71] (visual [72]), and you are one of the top contributors on 7 out of these 9 top edited pages of Middayexpress as discussed above, again, very unusual. I think the point is clear, though I do not expect you to accept it--Kzl55 (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the volume of my output increased because of a separate content dispute. I began regularly editing twice daily around that later 2016 period rather than the year before in 2015, as suggested above. This can be confirmed through the time marks in the closing discussion, which show times of roughly 4:00 UTC & 16:00 UTC [73]. Volume is not particularly relevant, though, as most of my total edits have always been and are still primarily to other WikiProject pages. If most of my total edits had instead suddenly focused on this WikiProject's pages, then perhaps that would be a valid argument. This is not, however, the situation. The fact remains, that editor has edited 24,187 total pages, 23,661 pages of which I have not even edited (~97.8%). And among their top 9 edited pages, only 1 is actually in my top 9 edited pages [74] [75]. Soupforone (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment does not provide a reasonable explanation for any of the points raised. I reiterate that you are one of the top contributors on 7 out of the 9 top edited pages of Middayexpress [76] (visual [77]), whether their top edited pages also appear on your list of top edited pages is an entirely different point. I will leave it there, as this is getting repetitive.--Kzl55 (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That means very little, as the Middayexpress editor is the top contributor on virtually every page on the Horn of Africa WikiProjects. It is therefore not difficult at all for any editor that has edited pages on those WikiProjects to have at least some page overlap with them regardless of the page. The fact remains, though, that editor has 24,187 total pages edited, of which only 526 are to pages actually shared with me [78]. The remaining 23,661 (~97.8%) pages that the individual has edited I have not even edited. And of their actual top 9 edited pages, only 1 is in my top 9 edited pages [79] [80]. Soupforone (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion. The fact that you are one of the top contributors on 7 out of the 9 top edited pages of Middayexpress, in addition to all other behavioural evidence included in this investigation, strongly suggests sock-puppetry. I reiterate that whether their top edited pages also appear on your list of top edited pages is an entirely separate point, though it is clear you are not going to accept this. Lets leave it there.--Kzl55 (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The global statistics above are certainly not my opinion, unlike the almost farcical behavioral "evidence" you allude to. The actual fact remains that the Middayexpress editor has 24,187 total pages edited, of which only 526 are to pages shared with me [81]. The remaining 23,661 (~97.8%) pages that the individual has edited I have not edited. Of their actual top 9 edited pages, only 1 is in my top 9 edited pages [82] [83]. Soupforone (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Possible off-site canvassing by Middayexpress [84] may be relevant to this investigation considering that Soupforone finds support for their positions from disruptive editors and sock masters with interest in the project such as:
  • Zakariayps (with at least 35+ confirmed socks that we know of [85]), has supported Soupforone’s position across multiple articles such as:
  • Somalis: [86], [87], [88] and [89] (where they are using the exact same string “per wp:nbio, since leader is not notable enough to have his own wiki-bio (google only turns up a few wiki-mirrors, forum posts & blogs), he is definitely not comparable in notability to the decorated sultan” in the edit summary as Soupforone [90]).
  • The same applies to Talk:Somalis: [91].
  • Mohamoud Ali Shire: [92]
Please note all three pages Somalis, Talk:Somalis and Mohamoud Ali Shire on which the sock master Zakariayps supported Soupforone are pages of interest of Middayexpress (they are top editors on all three [93], [94], [95]).
  • Somajeeste is another editor with a history of disruptive editing [96], [97], who were also contacted on their talk page on three separate occasions by three confirmed socks of Zakariayps [98] (please note the 'we' in the message “… if we don't report him”), [99], [100]. Somajeeste supported Soupforone on the Somali language article as seen in the following edits: [101], [102], [103], [104], [105].
It is worth noting that Somajeeste also previously canvassed Soupforone [106] to support their nomination for an article’s deletion in the project (Soupforone was the only editor canvassed by Somajeeste and they obliged and voted for delete/rename [107]), this led to the following ANI discussion [108]. And subsequently to this SPI [109], where three administrators found behavioural evidence compelling [110], [111], [112]. This was not the first time Soupforone was canvassed for the deletion of this particular article [113].--Kzl55 (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see association fallacy, WP:IRRELEVANT and WP:NPA. I am not Zakariayps or Somajeeste either, as a Checkuser on those accounts has already shown [114] [115]. How other editors choose to edit is not my responsibility, nor is it valid grounds for socking or meatpuppeting claims per WP:SOCK. Soupforone (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one claimed you are Zakariayps or Somajeeste. However, there is a valid concern that Middayexpress has been involved in off-site canvassing [116]. This makes the issue of the support you have received from long-term disruptive editor and sock-master Zakariayps (with 35+ confirmed socks [117]), across a number of pages, sometimes using the exact same string as you in their edit summaries, relevant to this discussion. The same applies for the support your edits received from other users with a history of disruptive editing such as Somajeeste, particularly since you were the only editor canvassed by Somajeeste and you obliged and voted for delete/rename in their AfD as outlined above.--Kzl55 (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also an association fallacy. WP:Canvassing by other editors is not my responsibility, nor is it equivalent to WP:Meatpuppeting. Soupforone (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing by other editors may not your responsibility (although it is quite interesting you were the only editor canvassed by Somajeeste), but you responded to their canvassing and voted in support of their AfD [118]. You getting support from editors with a history of disruptive edits to the project (one of which having 35+ confirmed socks) is especially relevant to this investigation given the real concerns about off-site canvassing by Middayexpress.--Kzl55 (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More debunked repetition. It doesn't make really any difference, though, since a Checkuser has already shown no connection between me and Somajeeste and Zakariayps [119] [120]. Soupforone (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated above, no one claimed you are Zakariayps or Somajeeste. However the support you have received (and given) from/to editors with a history of disruptive editing (one being a long-term sock master with 35+ confirmed socks) as demonstrated above is relevant to this discussion, especially considering valid concerns about Middayexpress’ off-site canvassing--Kzl55 (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would perhaps be relevant if it had been established that Zakariayps and Somajeeste were connected to that editor, but that has not been proven either. Soupforone (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been going over a long list of Middayexpress related material to refresh my memory from having dealt with the user; I wanted to draw whoever's working this case to this ANI discussion and to point out that I previously went through a list of everyone that Midday express had contact with; the compiled list is given below, though I want to note that the names given are not - repeat NOT - suspected of being sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or anything other than honest, legitimate users at the time the list was compiled. I'm placing it here only to see if any additional evidence should surface concerning the accounts and ip addresses as they relate to the matter at hand.
You'll note two things very quickly with this list, first Soupforone isn't on it and I am; second the nominator of the SPI, CordlessLarry, is on this list. I can attest that I am not Middayexpress or any of his alleged clones, and most of the above mentioned accounts belong to editors in good standing though there are a few in the list that could be suspect (isp addresses in particular). Additionally, acid snow was called out on the above mentioned ANI link for being a point of contact for editors wish to contribute to the area by Midday Express (or so it was claimed).
Since my name and actions have been continuously mentioned in this discussion, I will further provide feedback. In regards to the SPI, at face value, those diffs certainly do look compelling. This is due to the presented "evidence" being phrases that I have used in the past that were mimicked by the individual (Somajeeste) in question. After closer examination in regards to all aspects, however, it was concluded that this was far from the case by more than one administrator: [121] and [122]. More importantly, the individual in question lives on a separate content; see here: [123] I should also note BU Rob13 didn't state that the diffs were compelling, he states quite the opposite really; see here: [124]. Nor is this the first time an individual attempted a poor imitation of me either; see here: [125].
In regards to me canvassing with Soupforone, this is something that I have refuted in the past but has nonetheless been brought up again. The claim that I have canvassed is indeed far from reality. How does one solicit a view from a user that they have never agreed with; see here for example: [126]? This is in contrast to the users that Kzl55 messaged whose edits would indicate the likelihood of holding similar views and had all joined recently. For further detail see here:
Further information in regards to the claims of canvassing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Actually, there's a clear distinction between my actions and that of Kzl55. As Awale-Abdi points out, me and Soupforone have had numerous disagreements in the past (see this articles talk page as an example: here). In fact, Soupforone and I have disagreed on the vast majority of our discussions, so theirs no indication that we would agree on this matter either. In addition, I've never spoke to AlaskaLava prior to this discussion. Awale-Abdi found the article on his own and we've disagreed in the past too (see here:[127]), so stating that he is an acquaintance doesn't prove much. All three users are all well established editors and have all shown considerable knowledge one the Somali people and the wider region. One the other hand, Kzl55 sought the thoughts of individuals whom had all joined recently (most likely a coincidence), made very few edits, and had all desired to prop up the regions independence movement on Wikipedia, see: here, here, and here. AcidSnow 07:00, 21 January 2017

I should note that Kzl55 was quick to remove his messages to these users, but not before accusing me of canvassing; see here: [128]. Although Kzl55 is a different subject, it is still nonetheless an important aspect.
Anyways, this isn't the first time Middayexpress or I have been suspected of sockpuppetry or meat-puppetry; see here: [129] and [130] Both prior investigations concluded that each user was unrelated to one another. Both Middayexpress and I have come across sockpuppetry over the years and have dealt with them accordingly. Especially individuals that never learn or change their behaviors. As such, this begs the question: Had sockpuppetry or meatpupperty been the case, then why would we leave even a single trace? In particular, unique phrases? Surely we would have requested better editors in addition to all other possible errors being swept away.
As the administer BU Rob13 stated in his closing statement in the SPI against me:
"Further, what do the identical phrases do to support sockpuppetry? One does not copy/paste identical phrases while trying to evade scrutiny with multiple accounts, and the phrase is too large and specific to just attribute it to the consistent speech pattern of a single individual. An actual copy/paste seems more likely"
This remark is quite interesting as it further supports Soupforone statements in regards to users developing "common timesaving shortcuts and unofficial shorthand to facilitate the editing process". In summation, it's quite clear that Soupforone and Middayexpress are two different individuals and that we are all unrelated. AcidSnow (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify in case you have misunderstood, AcidSnow, while Middayexpress and Soupforone's posts on your talk page are included in the behavioural evidence I provided, I am not accusing you of sockpuppetry. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Same story here. I'm not accusing you of sockpuppetry AcidSnow, I'm only including the previous material here so that the board's checkuser group can see where we're coming from and what has been done to date about this. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although you have suspected me of sockpuppetry in the past CordlessLarry to the point of opening an investigation (see here:[131]), I am aware that you did not in regards to this particular case. I mentioned the two previous investigations and the claims of canvassing as they are indeed relevant to this matter. Both TomStar81 and Kzl55 linked to the prior investigations against me as well (see here: [132] and here: [133]). In addition, it seems that this investigation is now leaning towards claims of meatpuppetry like the others did (see here: [134] and here: [135]).
As both prior investigations showed, I am not Middayexpress' puppet or a meatpuppet (see here: [136]), nor are Somajeeste and I one or the other (see here: [137]). In addition, Soupforone and Middayexpress hold radically different views (compare this: [138] to this: [139]). As such, it seems odd to be tapping up a polar opossite user. In my opinion, since its quiet clear that these are two different individuals its only a matter of time till meatpuppetry is also concluded to be wrong by others. AcidSnow (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AcidSnow, there is no need for off-topic discussions, both Cordless Larry and TomStar81 explicitly stated that they are not accusing you of sock-puppetry. With regards to your comment about canvassing, you have canvassed Soupforone [140] as well as another editor [141], and both editors you’ve solicited commented in support of your AfD [142], [143]. Linking to relevant previous discussions concerning this investigation does not equal accusation of sockpuppetry.--Kzl55 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterate, I am aware that nobody accused me of sockpuppetry in regards to this particular case. Nowhere in any of my statements did I ever reach such a conclusion, nor claim that. Nonetheless, my statements were indeed relevant regardless of your assertion. And by all means continue your claims of canvassing, but it never got far the first time; see here: [144]. AcidSnow (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to behavioural evidence above, Soupforone seems to show interest and similar idiosyncratic behaviour to Middayexpress on obscure articles known to be of interest to ME. An example of this is Mohamoud Ali Shire, an obscure article of a Somali elder with just 37 daily average pageviews and 20 editors in total [145]. Middayexpress is the top editor on this article with 141 edits, followed by Soupforone with 97 edits [146]). Behavioural aspects linking the two editors on this obscure article include:

  • Same idiosyncratic preference for usage of Sulṭān (vs Sultan), years apart: (Middayexpress [147]), (Soupforone [148]).
  • Middayexpress uploaded a non-free photograph file of this Somali elder and added it to the article [149], the file was deleted following a community discussion Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 21#File:Sultmohshirmed.jpg. Soupforone re-uploaded the same non-free file previously uploaded by Middayexpress File:Sultan-queen-honor.jpeg, also added it to the obscure article [150]. They even went as far as adding a fair use rationale to add it to the 1953 Coronation Honours list (where the Somali elder file is the only photograph of a recipient in the list out of 1000+ recipients, many of whom are more notable).
  • Repeated restoration of problematic content in the article thats either unsourced or whose source is not acceptable per Wikipedia policy (self-published, user-generated sources, sometimes using a travel guide as a source to make WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims) [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156]. This is relevant because much of the content repeatedly restored by Soupforone was originally added by Middayexpress [157], [158], [159], [160], [161].--Kzl55 (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, sulṭān is the Arabic spelling for "sultan" on the sultan page. Furthermore, the Mohamoud Ali Shire page was prominently linked to on the Somalis page, which is how I actually found it [162]. That is not exactly "obscure" either. As for the text alluded to above, the user blanked it under the editing rationale that it was "unsourced content" [163]. However, the text was apparently instead mostly sourced, so I restored it as per WP:VANDTYPES - Blanking, illegitimate [164]. The exact chronology of this is explained here. As to the coronation photo, when one Googles the sultan's name as I did, it is among the very first images of this ruler that pops up in the ordinary search results [165]. Again, not "obscure". Soupforone (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the article deals with Somali individuals and not Arabs. In that context both yourself and Middayexpress show an idiosyncratic preference for the Arabic Sulṭān spelling (vs Sultan). The Mohamoud Ali Shire article receives 37 daily average pageviews and has 20 editors in total [166], as such it is obscure. You performing similar actions to Middayexpress (by re-uploading the exact same file that they uploaded and was deleted), as well as your repeated restoration of their problematic additions is very relevant to this discussion. A timeline of your repeated restoration of problematic content on that article is found here [167], including your attempt to use a travel guide as a source to make an exceptional claim as well as misuse of transportation-related, inactive page to justify your use of a travel guide (bottom addition [168].--Kzl55 (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the same debunked claims as above. Soupforone (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear we will not come to an agreement here, I think both of us said what we wanted to say regarding the points above--Kzl55 (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All that remains is for Checkuser to confirm that I am not this editor, as it already has done in the earlier case against AcidSnow. Soupforone (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser is not an option, because the Middayexpress account has not been used since May 2015. Instead, the case will be judged on the behavioural evidence, which strongly suggests sockpuppetry. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is a matter of opinion, definitely not fact. The actual fact is, there is no proof of off-site canvassing (and certainly none involving me), no evidence of any interaction between myself and this editor, and a tiny page overlap of only 526 edited pages out of tens of thousands of total edited pages. An increased volume of edits to primarily different pages one year after that May 2015 period also doesn't support the claim of socking or meatpuppeting. A similar turn-of-phrase here or there doesn't mean much either since veteran editors often share time-saving shorthand, and Checkuser has already shown that Zakariayps and Somajeeste (who have far more similar writing styles as me) are not me. Anyway, there is an IP address available for Checkuser confirmation. Soupforone (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AcidSnow, exactly. There is also the issue of troll accounts mimicking an established editor to try and undermine that editor's credibility. Actually, it's funny that you should mention this since just a few days ago (interesting timing, no?), some troll account did just that and copied my username [169]. Soupforone (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summary
  • "There's a lot of overlap between the articles they edit" -- The user compare report actually shows the exact opposite of that, with only 526 shared pages out of a total 23312 pages edited by Midayexpress as of 29 March 2018 [170]. That is a miniscule ~2.26% total edited page overlap - I have not edited the remaining ~97.74% of pages that Middaexpress has edited.
  • "With many of the articles, Soupforone doesn't seem to have edited them even once before Middayexpress was topic banned. Then, several months after Midday has been gone (long enough to avoid raising suspicions?), Soupforone becomes an active editor of them." -- The volume of my editing output increased because of a separate content dispute, and well over a year (not just a few months) after Middayexpress had stopped editing. As the global statistics show, I began regularly editing twice daily around the later 2016 period rather than the year before in 2015 when the editor apparently quit Wikipedia [171]. This can also be confirmed through the time marks of that discussion, which show two daily time concentrations on my part of roughly 4:00 UTC & 16:00 UTC [172].
  • "There are also similarities in writing style, with some shared and unusual phrasing, such as "per the actual XXX policy" -- Veteran editors often share time-saving shorthand, so a similar turn-of-phrase here or there does not mean much. Variations of "per the actual x" are also relatively common on Wikipedia [173], including in the Template:Search link.
  • "They both use "neutralize" as an edit summary" -- As do many other veteran Wikipedians [174]. However, what the user compare tool shows overall is that most of our edit summaries are different [175].
  • "Both editors frequently make double edits." -- The global statistics actually show that I/Soupforone average 7 edits per page, whereas Middayexpress averages 5 edits per page. Furthermore, I have 11.6 average edits per day at an average edit size of only 59.7 bytes, compared to 44.9 average edits per day at an average edit size of 141.9 bytes for Middayexpress. That is around four times higher than my average edits per day and just under three times higher than my average edit size.[176] [177] The user compare tool also indicates that our editing times are completely different, with my normal edit time being 9:30:3.78414250786 whereas Middayexpress' normal edit time is 15:47:10.4411169385 [178].
  • "They both have detailed knowledge of haplogroups" -- As do a great many other veteran editors on Wikipedia. That is why Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics exists in the first place.
  • "Both frequently reach out to AcidSnow for input/advice" -- AcidSnow is not exactly someone I go to frequently for advice, as he himself points out above. More like someone who appears to be knowledgeable in this area, but whose opinion often differs from my own [179].
  • "One of Middayexpress's tactics for keeping material that they did not like out of articles about Somalia-related topics was to claim that WP:BLPGROUP applied to large populations[...] Soupforone floats the same idea in a discussion about Amharas[...] Middayexpress also used WP:REDFLAG to remove material based on high-quality, peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles (e.g. here), as I noted in the discussion leading to his topic ban. Soupforone also seems keen on using REDFLAG as justification for removing sourced material that does not match their POV" -- Where exactly WP:BLPGROUP is in effect is actually a relatively common point of discussion on Wikipedia [180] [181]. WP:REDFLAG is also easily one of the most frequently invoked policies on the website [182].
  • "Both Middayexpress[...] and Soupforone[...] attempt to veto use of sources on the grounds that they are "Afrocentric"" -- Actually, the source itself indicates that it is Afrocentric - no special effort on my part was/is needed ("Although there have been studies of the Ethiopian Jews by Israeli and American scholars and journalists, I bring a new approach to the subject-the Afrocentric perspective" [183]). Soupforone (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
non-notable Somalia-related articles created by Middayexpress

Middayexpress has created at least two articles for non-notable Somalia-related subjects, two of whom that's been deleted via the AfD processes instigated by me: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherissa and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amira Ahmed (2nd nomination). The deletion notification are on the talk page of ME. AadaamS (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppeting in topic ban attempt against Middayexpress

It would appear that the RFC case against the editor Middayexpress, which is linked to in one of the urls above, was closed due to both confirmed onsite canvassing [184] and confirmed email meatpuppeting [185]. As per WP:CANVASS, this invalidates the subsequent attempt to topic ban Middayexpress since some of the same apparently canvassed parties were involved in that as well. Soupforone (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP
UNINVOLVED issues in this case against Middayexpress

It appears that the moderators Drmies [186] and Nick-D [187] who have commented below in the administrator area have both had past issues with the editor Middayexpress. As per WP:UNINVOLVED, they are therefore not neutral administrators in this case and should not act as such-- "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." Soupforone (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses for Checkuser

I've found an ip address which appears to have belonged to the editor Middayexpress. It seems that they forgot to log-in and did so only minutes later [188] [189]. @Materialscientist: could you please run the Checkuser tool on this ip address? A Checkuser clerk can compare this ip to my own to confirm that we are not the same individual. Soupforone (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could a clerk also run the Checkuser tool on the ips associated with the sockmaster Muktar allebey, whose Hadraa account is linked to above? There appears to be considerable overlap in the global statistics in that case with that here. Soupforone (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor Somajeeste alluded to above also apparently logged into their Wikipedia account recently [190]. A clerk can therefore now run the Checkuser tool on that as well. Soupforone (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As explained to you above [191], the Middayexpress account has been inactive since May 2015, as such a checkuser is not an option in this case. Instead, behavioural evidence presented will be used, and it does make for a very compelling case of sock-puppetry. As for Somajeeste, it is not exactly clear why you are requesting for a checkuser to be run on them, no one claimed you are Somajeeste (as explained to you above [192] and [193]), though it is interesting that their only edit since 18 September 2017 happens to coincide with this investigation.--Kzl55 (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Checkuser tool can always check ips that are known if it has been established that those ips belonged to a user. The ip above clearly belonged to Middayexpress, just as the ones listed in the related Muktar allebey case belonged to that user. These ips can therefore each be compared against other accounts to see if they they were/are operated by the same individual. Any editor who is interested in the objective truth (rather than subjective interpretations of behavior) and is not afraid of what the Checkuser tool will find should welcome this. As per WP:ROOMMATE, the Checkuser tool used on the Somajeeste account will also help clarify whether they are meatpuppeting. Soupforone (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why we should assume that an IP address that was being used in 2009 is still being used by the same editor in 2018. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It obviously is not since we aren't the same editor in the first place (as with the earlier AcidSnow false positive). The Checkuser tool will confirm this, which appears to be part of the actual reason behind the reluctance above to its use. Soupforone (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For Checkuser clerk

Besides the ips belonging to the Middayexpress [194] [195], Muktar allebbey Muktar allebey and Somajeeste accounts [196], please also run the Checkuser tool on the Soùpforne troll account that some individual recently created [197]. Let us find out who is behind this trickery. Soupforone (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is still not clear why you are requesting a checkuser on an IP address that was used in 2009. The same goes for Somajeeste (you were advised repeatedly that no one in this investigation claimed that you are Somajeeste [198], [199] and [200]). The same also applies for Muktar Alebey.--Kzl55 (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Checkuser tool is nothing to be afraid of (unless of course one is actually socking/meatpuppeting, then it is to be avoided). While the Checkuser tool does keep account ip data for a finite period of time, it can still be run on ip addresses that have already been established as belonging to particular accounts - ips like the ones associated with the Middayexpress [201] [202] and Muktar allebbey accounts [203]. Since Somajeeste recently edited, the claim above that they are meatpuppeting can now as well be verified by the Checkuser tool as per WP:SHARE. The Checkuser tool can also be run on the Soùpforne troll account to see who is operating it [204]. Soupforone (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I'm convinced. I am interested in another admin looking at this; I looked at shared idiosyncrasies in writing and they are all over the place ([205] and [206], for instance). The next question would be what we do. If Soupforone has been a decent contributor, then Middayexpress could have been one had it not been for the topic ban--but that the topic ban was violated is already a serious offense. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Drmies: Just to let you know that I have spent some time looking into this already and insha'Allah I will manage to reach a conclusion later today. Ben MacDui 10:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree with your assessment. Soupforone has not been slow in pointing out the differences in general editing style between that account and Middayexpress but I don’t think that there is much there that a clever and determined sock could not achieve deliberately. On the other hand there are numerous similarities as provided in the copious listings above and Soupforone’s explanations are as lamentable as they are lengthy. On the positive side I agree that although Soupforone is not most exemplary of editors the behaviour does seem to be somewhat less disruptive than the Midday account.
If we consider Middayexpress to be the master then Soupforone should presumably be indef blocked for socking and the former should get a suitable block for socking plus more time for evading a topic ban. I am not very familiar with such bans and WP:RECIDIVISM is rather vague about sanctions.
However, technically Soupforone is the older of the accounts so maybe Middayexpress should be indef blocked and it’s the former who receives a block for socking and topic ban evasion plus perhaps a warning about the latest policy developments. If this is correct then it was clever of the master if they contrived this deliberately and perhaps this needs input from a clerk? Either way, the ban would still apply to both accounts. Ben MacDui 13:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ben MacDui, thank you for your attention to this matter--they are time-consuming, aren't they. I also welcome input from a clerk, this being such an odd case. May I add that my assessment went further than just those two edits--I have looked at a whole bunch of em. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have also gone through the evidence here and reviewed other edits by these accounts, and am convinced that these two accounts belong to the same person. I note in particular the overall editing pattern (the various sets of statistics provided above are very useful and tell a clear story) and the content of the edits (similar language and similar material being posted). Adding the exact same image on a relatively obscure person really also stands out for me, especially in light of the weight of other evidence. As such, I conclude that this person has been using the Soupforone account to evade their topic ban and continue other problematic conduct (of which re-adding an image deleted as violating the rules around non-free images is significant in isolation, given the disregard this shows for both the community and Wikipedia's copyright rules). The extent of this evasion is clearly massive, and the evidence presented above shows that it's led to the same kinds of problems for which the topic ban was applied. @Drmies and Ben MacDui: Given the deliberate and long-running attempt to deceive the community to evade a community ban, I propose to apply an indefinite duration block on both accounts. I note that I had some minor interactions with the Middayexpress account, but do not consider them to have been close to making me WP:INVOLVED, especially in this context. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Blocked without tags As there have been no dissenting comments from my admin colleagues or other editors, I have applied these blocks. I note that there is consensus among all three admins who have reviewed this case that these accounts are the same person, and several editors who do not have the admin tools have reached the same conclusion: this is a much higher standard of review and evidence than is the case for most SPI cases. As it is unclear (and somewhat academic given the circumstances) which account should be considered the 'master', if the person behind the accounts wishes to be unblocked in the future they will need to commit to using only one or the other of the accounts - preferably Middayexpress to avoid confusion relating to the topic ban. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies, Ben MacDui, Nick-D, and Cordless Larry: Based on the outcome of this SPI, I have updated Middayexpress's editing restrictions. Among other things, the new restrictions require any suspected Middayexpress sock accounts to be logged here to ensure a single master list of socks. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19 April 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


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

Reporting a new suspected account per note on Middayexpress' Wikipedia:Editing restrictions entry.

  • The Troyoleg account was created on 3 April Special:Log/Troyoleg, just an hour or so after Middayexpress sock Soupforone's last edit on their talk page.
  • Troyoleg seems to be interested in the same projects as Soupforone, both on Wikipedia as well as Commons (where they uploaded a portrait of politician Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed the current president of Somalia [207], something Middayexpress would do as they've previously uploaded multiple portraits of the same politician [208], [209], [210], [211]).
  • Troyoleg has a similar time card as Soupforone (who generally posted twice a day, around 4:00 UTC and 16:00 UTC [212]). Troyoleg has so far been posting around 16:00 UTC [213]. They have been recently involved in an edit war across large swath of articles which is why there is a large bubble at 18:00 UTC on their time card, most of these edits were revs, a look through their contribution history will confirm that prior to the edit war they generally edited around 16:00 UTC, very similar to Soupforone's preferred time.
  • Soupforone has always pushed for names in Somali articles to also be displayed in Arabic [214] (plenty of other examples available). And Troyoleg seems to be pushing for that same point [215] (again, plenty of other examples available).
  • As a secondary point to the preference of Arabic in Somali articles. It seems that the edit war Troyoleg is currently involved in is a continuation of a previous edit war that Soupforone had with the IP over the use of Arabic in WP articles: [216], [217], [218], [219] (plenty more). On the same pages, Troyoleg is pushing for the exact same changes as Soupforone against the IP, their positions are identical: [220], [221], [222], [223] (etc etc).
  • Troyolag exhibits the same idiosyncratic editing style of making a major edit quickly followed by a minor edit [224], [225], this habit is seen in the edits of both Middayexpress and Soupforone [226], [227] (both links copied from previous SPI).
  • The userboxes displayed on their talk page appears to have clear hints/taunts that they are a "scary ghost" implying they are a returning member. As well as "thinking in four dimension" which appears to reference their previous (and perhaps current) evasion of blocks. They have added these userboxes the same day they registered the account, which is an odd thing for a new member to know of and do link. Kzl55 (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • Despite the checkuser result, I am finding it very difficult to believe, based on the behavioural evidence, that Troyoleg isn't a Middayexpress sock. In addition to the evidence above, I presented evidence of Troyoleg restoring material originally written by Middayexpress and Soupforone at User talk:Cordless Larry#Sock back?. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - Per evidence provided, to confirm socking. Sro23 (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure if a checkuser will be useful for this case. Soupforone (confirmed sock of Middayexpress) insisted on the use of checkuser in the last SPI, this suggests they have means to evade a checkuser, seeing as they were later confirmed to be a sock through behavioural evidence.--Kzl55 (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The behavioural evidence that this is the same person seems very clear. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my finding.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Blocked and tagged I note the finding of Bbb23's checkuser run (which, as I understand it, is an assessment of technical evidence), but I think that the behavioural evidence here is very clear. As well as the above, I note the results of the Editor interaction utility and user compare report regarding these accounts - a high degree of crossover. Troyoleg is clearly not a new editor, and the similarities between their edits and those of Middayexpress are striking. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing left to do here. Closing case. Sro23 (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


30 April 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

  • Geneticanthro (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User was created April 18 at 15:50. Goes on to edit for a half hour (16:01 - 16:37). Then is dormant until April 26.

Previous sock Troyoleg began editing for the day on April 18 shortly after Geneticanthro stopped. Troyoleg was blocked was blocked on April 24. Two days later, Geneticanthro resumes editing. Note that Soupforone had edited on all pages Geneticanthro has. See https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Soupforone&users=&users=Geneticanthro&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki

Tirgil34 was my initial suspect as the sock master given their focus on genetics (and past socks having also edited on the same pages as Geneticanthro). But the African focus led me to Midwayexpress. Is it possible they are the same sock master? EvergreenFir (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CU request removed per Kzl55's suggestion. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


@EvergreenFir: I am not sure if a checkuser will be useful for this SPI. Soupforone (confirmed sock of Middayexpress) insisted on the use of checkuser in the last SPI, this suggests they have means of evading a checkuser since they were later confirmed to be a sock through behavioural evidence. Moreover, they seem to be running multiple socks atm, so I suggest you remove your request for a checkuser and let the case be judged through behavioural evidence instead. Regards--Kzl55 (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: It's definitely him. He has the same urge to link East Africans to Arabs.Wadaad (talk) 10:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copying over additional behaviour evidence from the other open SPI [228]:
  • Geneticanthro account was created on 18 April, shortly after discussion regarding confirmed sock Troyoleg took place [229].
  • Geneticanthro exhibits the same interest in Horn of Africa projects particularly Somali and Ethiopian articles [230], [231], [232]. This is inline with Middayexpress/Soupforone behaviour as both have Somalis as one of their top edited articles [233], [234].
  • Geneticanthro exhibits the same idiosyncratic editing style of making a major edit quickly followed by a minor (+1) edit: [235], [236], [237]. This habit is seen in the edits of both Middayexpress and Soupforone [238], [239].
  • Geneticanthro has a similar time card as Soupforone (who generally posted twice a day, between 2:00-6:00 UTC and between 14:00-18:00 UTC [240]). Geneticanthro conforms to the second editing slot [241]. Please note that this is also inline with confirmed sock Troyoleg's time card [242] --Kzl55 (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

See report below.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

01 May 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


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

Reporting multiple new suspected accounts operated by Middayexpress/Soupforone per note on Middayexpress' Wikipedia:Editing restrictions entry.

Behavioural evidence:

  • Accounts creation dates: Both Odriejh and Egezal accounts (as well as Geneticanthro which has a separate SPI [243]) were created within days of one another (22, 25 and 18 April respectively). It is important to note that the accounts were created around confirmed sock Troyoleg's SPI which started on 19th of April [244] (blocked on 24 April).
  • Same interest in Horn of Africa projects particularly Somali and Ethiopian articles as Middayexpress/Soupforone:
  • Particular interest in the Somalis article, which is a top edited article of Soupfornone (confirmed sock) [245], Troyoleg (confirmed sock) [246] and Middayexpress [247]. Examples of this include:
  • Odriejh [248], [249], [250] (it was their second ever edit).
  • Egezal [251] (restoring a previous edit by suspected sock Odriejh).
  • Geneticanthro [252], [253], [254].
  • Same interest in articles related to Afro-Asiatic languages by one of the reported accounts. This is an area frequented by all confirmed socks thus far (Troyoleg [255], [256], [257], [258], Soupforone [259], [260], [261], Middayexpress [262], [263]... there are many more examples):
  • Odriejh [264], [265], [266], [267]... there are many other examples.
  • All accounts exhibit the same idiosyncratic editing style of making a major edit quickly followed by a minor (+1) edit:
  • Odriejh [268], [269], [270]... and so on.
  • Egezal [271], [272], [273]... and so on.
  • Geneticanthro [274], [275], [276]... and so on.
This habit is seen in the edits of Middayexpress [277] as well as confirmed socks Soupforone [278] and Troyoleg [279].
  • The new accounts have a similar time card as Soupforone (who generally edited twice a day, between 2:00-6:00 UTC and between 14:00-18:00 UTC [280]). They all conform to the second editing slot: Odriejh [281], Egezal [282], Geneticanthro [283]. Please note that this is also inline with confirmed sock Troyoleg's time card [284].
  • Same restoration of Nuruddin Farah file to the Somalis article:
  • Troyoleg (confirmed sock) [285]. Odriejh [286]. Egezal [287]. Kzl55 (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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


12 May 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


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

Reporting multiple new suspected accounts operated by Middayexpress/Soupforone per note on Middayexpress' Wikipedia:Editing restrictions entry.

There has been an influx of sock accounts following the blocking of Soupforone as a sock of Middayexpress (e.g. Troyoleg, Geneticanthro, Odriejh, Egezal). And it seems since these sock accounts were blocked, more sock accounts were created/activated, all of whom seem to share similar editing styles/areas of interest/time card with Soupforone/Middayexpress.

All of these accounts have these commonalities:

  • New accounts or accounts that made their first edits recently following the block of Soupforone.
  • Clearly not new users of Wikipedia.
  • Same interest in Somali/Ethiopian articles as Middayexpress/Soupforone, including specific articles of interest to Middayexpress/Soupforone.
  • Sticking very closely to Soupforone's established time card.


Behavioural evidence for Rogundra90:

  • Rogundra90 account was created on 19 April, almost exactly 24 hours after (now blocked) sock Geneticanthro account was created [288], [289]. The account was created only a few hours after SPI was filed against (now blocked) sock Troyoleg ([290], [291]).
  • Clearly not a new account per their editing history [292].
  • Same interest in Somali articles as Middayexpress and confirmed sock Soupforone:
  • Particular interest in the Somalis article, their top edited article [293]. This is an article of interest of Middayexpress, and appears on their top edited articles list [294], as well as on that of confirmed sock Soupforone [295], confirmed sock Troyoleg [296], confirmed sock Odriejh [297], confirmed sock Geneticanthro [298] and others.
  • Repeated restoration of file originally uploaded and added to artcicle by Middayexpress [299], [300]: [301], [302], [303].
  • Confirmed sock Soupforone has a time card showing two editing slots per day, generally between 2:00-6:00 UTC and between 14:00-18:00 UTC [304], so far it seems all blocked socks conform to the second editing slot: Troyoleg's [305], Odriejh [306], Egezal [307], Geneticanthro [308]. Rogundra90's time card shows a similar pattern [309]
  • Similar behaviour regarding Commons files: Soupforone has a history of unsuccessful Commons speedy deletion requests on grounds of copyright violation for images they want removed from articles. One example is their copyvio speedy deletion request of this file [310], followed by removal of file from article [311]. Similarly, Rogundra90's very first edit on Commons was a copyvio speedy deletion request for author Nadifa Mohamed's file [312], this was followed a couple of hours later by the removal of the same file from Somalis by confirmed sock Troyoleg [313] (same file was also removed by other confirmed socks [314], [315]).
  • Socks of Middayexpress have shown particular interest in uploading portraits of Somali politician to Commons. Middayexpress [316] (just one of many examples), Soupforone [317], Troyoleg [318]. Again, Rogundra90 is no different here [319], [320] and [321].

Behavioural evidence for Wahure:

  • Wahure account created 3 May [322], 2 days after SPI was filed against previous (now blocked) socks Odriejh and Egezal [323]. The same day (3 May) saw the creation of account Qevoja (also reported in this SPI, please see below).
  • Time card [324] conforms to second editing slot of Soupforone (between 14:00-18:00 UTC), similar to other socks as discussed above.
  • Addition of images to Somalis originally uploaded by Middayexpress to the Somalis article [325], [326].
  • Knowledge of and editing of obscure articles such as Wemberma, previously edited by confirmed sock Egezal [327]. This is an obscure article with less than an edit a day since creation. Excluding the creator of the article, there are only edits by sock Egezal and Wahure. Wahure's limited activity includes editing Bahir Dar Airport [328] (11 total edits) and Bitama [329] (8 total edits), the top editor of both articles is Middayexpress [330], [331].

Behavioural evidence for Qevoja:

  • Account created 3 May [332], 2 days after SPI was filed against previous (now blocked) socks Odriejh and Egezal (as per above). Account was created only a couple of hours before the Wahure account ([333], [334]).
  • Time card [335] inline with both editing slots of Soupforone (2:00-6:00 UTC and between 14:00-18:00 UTC) [336].
  • Repeated restoration of Haji Bashir file [337], [338], [339], originally added by Middayexpress [340], (this is similar behaviour to Rogundra90 as discussed above).
  • Similar attempt to hide socking activity by a public display of disagreement between two socks. This was previously done with Troyoleg and Odriejh (two confirmed socks) [341], here Qevoja is reverting confirmed sock Geneticanthro [342].

Behavioural evidence for Kobe19782:

  • Account created 4 May [343], one day after accounts Qevoja and Wahure were created (on 3 May) and on the same day previous socks Geneticanthro, Odriejh, Egezal were blocked. It was probably created in anticipation of the block.
  • Time card [344] inline with Soupforone's first editing slot (2:00-6:00 UTC [345]).
  • Same interest in Somalis and Amharas [346] (both articles have both Soupforone and Middayexpress as top editors [347], [348].
  • Same insertion of population estimate 20-21 million in the Somalis article as Soupforone, months apart [349], [350].

Behaviour evidence for Arboleh:

This account seems to have been a sleeper (account created 21 May 2017) that was activated recently (first edit 7 April 2018).

  • First ever edit on 7 April [351], a few days after sock account Troyoleg was created (3 April).
  • Time card inline with sock Soupforone. Unlike some of the recently blocked socks whose activity happened during Soupforone's second editing slot (14:00-18:00 UTC), Arboleh account's time card follows both Soupforone's editing slots (2:00-6:00 UTC and between 14:00-18:00 UTC) [352], [353].
  • They have edited only three articles: Horn of Africa, Cushitic languages and Land of Punt, all three articles have either Soupforone or Middayexpress (or both) on their top editors list [354], [355], [356].
  • On Horn of Africa for instance, Arboleh made a number of edits to the history section on the 7 April [357], this was followed by edits to the same history section by confirmed sock Troyoleg later that same day [358]. Kzl55 (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I have no idea how this system works, and I apologize for that, but I am wondering if this is the appropriate place to suggest that somebody keeps an eye on user 185.84.181.121 as a possible sockpuppet? Middayexpress persistently edited East African archaeology pages to include reference to the "African Great Lakes region", and this unidentified user has reverted edits of mine which deleted that phrase from the Luxmanda article. Thanks, and again I apologize if this is not the right place to note my concerns (or if I should do so at all). Ninafundisha (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, can you check this latest report, or does Ninafundisha need to file a new case via WP:SPI? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ninafundisha, please see Bbb23's reply below. You'll need to file a new case by going to WP:SPI, opening the "How to open an investigation" box, entering "Middayexpress" into the text field, pressing submit and then completing the pro-forma report that appears with the details of the IP's edits. Let me know if you need help. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks so much. I think I'll sit on it for now, but if I continue to have problems on the East Africa pages I'll open a new investigation for sure. Ninafundisha (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The following accounts, all using different proxies just like the last batch, are  Confirmed to each other and to Troyoleg (talk · contribs · count):
    • Rogundra90
    • Wahure
    • Qevoja
  • Kobe19782 and Arboleh are Red X Unrelated.
  • Blocked the confirmed accounts without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cordless Larry: If Ninafundisha wants the IP's edits evaluated, they should reopen this SPI so a new report is created. I can't check the IP because it is against policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


18 May 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

  • Cherue (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • 185.84.181.121 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I have previously been involved in long discussions with Middayexpress about several rather obscure East African archaeology pages, including Savanna Pastoral Neolithic - see our talk page discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Savanna_Pastoral_Neolithic. I have tried to update these pages with new archaeological information, and I have tried to remove information that can no longer be supported with current archaeological evidence. Full disclosure: I found Middayexpress extremely belligerent and unreasonably committed to very outdated notions about linguistic affiliations, genetic histories, terminology, and so forth. I have at times lost my patience and I am sorry for that. I have recently started editing East African archaeology pages again, and immediately after editing pages such as Luxmanda (which was created by Soupforone, a Middayexpress sockpuppet), Elmenteitan, and Savanna Pastoral Neolithic a user with the IP 185.84.181.121 began changing my edits back to better suit Middayexpress's vision of East African archaeology - he/she uses the term Great Lakes region see [359], for example, but no archaeologists that I know recognize and use this terminology. I posted a note here [360] raising my concerns. The next day, I believe, that user had stopped posting and Cherue appeared.

I do not believe that Cherue could be a new user of Wikipedia, given his/her editing proficiency and tendency to immediate make the same sorts of edits, on the same pages, as Middayexpress used to. Middayexpress also had the habit of making long edits followed by very short edits (presumably to hide those long edits from other user's watchlist pages?), which was noted in previous sockpuppet investigations. Cherue also seems extremely concerned with both genetic evidence and with linguistic evidence [361] (at the expense of archaeological evidence, in my opinion), which is exactly Middayexpress's pattern of editing as well.

My biggest frustration stems from the fact that Cherue's new edits seem intended (although I cannot prove this, and I apologize if I misread this situation) to minimize the contribution of Africans when thinking about ancient peoples found archaeologically in East Africa. For example, new genetic data from the site of Luxmanda shows that ~38% of an ancient individual's DNA is related to ancient Levantine populations, but ~66% is related to ancient hunter/gatherers from Ethiopia. Cherue repeatedly edits the first sentence in the Ancient DNA analysis section of the Luxmanda page to imply that the individual is either entirely or mostly from the Near East. Here is one example: [362]. I find this really distressing - African archaeology has a long history of denying African populations their history and contributions to the archaeological record, and so I feel obliged to fight this battle. Here is an example of Soupforone defending the problematic Hamitic hypothesis: [363]. Similar concerns about Middayexpress and Soupforone were voiced by Cordless Larry here in previous investigations of Middayexpress sockpuppetry [364]; see (here). Ninafundisha (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Confirmed to Troyoleg. Blocked without tags and closing (the IP edits are too old).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


24 May 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • [365] - creates an account three days after Troyoleg is blocked.
  • His first major edit is Addis Ababa [366], a page where he is the second-highest editor, if the socks Middayexpress, Troyoleg, and Soupforone are combined [367].
  • [368] Removes images of historical figures, similar to Troyoleg [369]
  • [370] Reinstates an edit war started by Soupforone [371]
  • [372] Similar POV in that Horn Africans aren't black [373].
  • [374] Similar editing style of following a major edit with a minor edit [375]
  • [376] Proceeds to diversify away from his usual topic area of Horn African ethnicities moments after I voiced my suspicions [377], as a form of dissimulation. Thylacoop5 (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • [378] Preference for longer titles, similar to Middayexpress [379]. Thylacoop5 (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Confirmed to Troyoleg. Blocked without tags, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


25 May 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Persistent reference to the African Great Lakes Region [380], [381]
  • Focus on ancient DNA, particularly haplogroups [382], see early edit history here [383]
  • Newly returned to editing genetic info in the Bantu peoples page after Geneticanthro sockpuppet was blocked [384] Ninafundisha (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Red X Unrelated. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

25 May 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • [385] Similar obsession with afro-asiatic topics [386]
  • [387] Account created mere hours after troyoleg was blocked.
  • [388] Obsessed with facial features/skin color of Afroasiatic individuals [389]
  • [390] Similar unnecessary spacing [391]
  • [392] Unusual preference for commas in titles/ledes [393] Thylacoop5 (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Confirmed to Troyoleg. Blocked without tags, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


28 May 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

  • 86.220.132.81 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)


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

IP user restores 2 questionable sections that were originally added by Soupforone, statements that are completely unsupported by the sources and thus original research. Originally added by Soupforone here [394]; by the IP here [395]. Restores this part here [396], which is made by a likely IP of Soupforone as this was followed by a long series of minor Soupforone edits [397]. One of this IP's few edits occur at [398], IP [399], which is filled with edits from Soupforone. Same with this article [400], IP here [401]. The only article which this IP has edited that wasn't edited by Soupforone is here [402], but this edit is still very Soupforone-ish as the editor is making changes/revisions to a section taking about an Afroasiatic language. The validity of this edit also probably need s to be checked.Fraenir (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Fraenir (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

This seems to have been open for awhile, seeing how other sections in this CU case are closed. Phearson (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The IP is too old. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

29 May 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Account creation on 8 May [403], a few days following the block of confirmed socks Geneticanthro, Odriejh and Egezal [404]. Inline with previous behaviour where confirmed sock account Troyoleg was created a few days following the block of Soupforone, and confirmed sock Egezal was created a day following the block of Troyoleg (...etc).
  • Clearly not a new user (per their editing history [405]).
  • High volume of edits just like Middayexpress/Soupforone (so far 474 edits made in 20 days, 209 in the last 7 days [406]).
  • Similar editing time preferences: Many of Soupforone's previous socks showed similar time card behaviour, it appears that they have attempted to change that behaviour to avoid detection, however the similarities are still very clear. One example being the edits of Soupforone on 4 March (a Sunday), they started editing that day at 03:18 UTC and finished at 19:21 UTC [407]. This last Sunday (27th), Thylacoop5 started editing at 06:19 UTC and finishes at 22:29 [408], this is the same time slot shifted almost exactly 3 hours (possibly to avoid detection via time card), this is very clear when placed side by side:
Soupforone: 03:18 - 19:21
Thylacoop5: 06:19 - 22:29
  • Same POV and behaviour regarding Isaaq genocide article as Soupforone:
  • Soupforone has voted to delete the article twice [409], [410] (delete or rename). Thylacoop5 shares the same POV as they have attempted to rename the article [411], [412], as well as started an RfC on renaming the article [413].
  • Thylacoop5 pushes for the use of the term 'massacre' instead of 'genocide' [414], citing Google search results [415], this is identical to Soupforone's behaviour [416] [417] who also pushed for the use of 'massacre' citing Google search results, the only one in the discussion to do so.
  • Soupforone inserting WP:NEOLOGISM as an embedded comment citing Google results [418]. Thylacoop5 holds the same view and and similarly cites WP:NEOLOGISM [419].
  • In the past, Soupforone/Middayexpress tried to hide socking activity by having two of the socks revert one another or display public disagreement, examples include Troyoleg reverting Odriejh [420] (both confirmed socks) and Qevoja reverting Geneticanthro (again, both confirmed socks) [421]. Thylacoop5 takes this a step further by starting an SPI against socks Vukharttara and Zavaiw [422], [423], very unusual behaviour by a supposedly new editor, but inline with previous attempts by Soupforone to avoid detection. Kzl55 (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • @Bbb23: many thanks. Would it be possible to not close this yet so that behavioural evidence can also be evaluated? Regards--Kzl55 (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: This account's main focus is inline with master and other socks in this SPI, i.e. Horn of Africa articles, with approximately 330 of their edits on the English Wikipedia being related to this project (VS approximately 90 edits related to Incel). Except for the Incel article (their second most edited article), all of their top edited articles are related to the Somali project [424]. Please note that multiple accounts that are now confirmed have edited articles unrelated to master or socks to avoid detection, most recent example being Zavaiw making Mauritania-related edits [425] or Vukharttara's second and third most edited articles being Japanese curry and Yerevan Confectionery and Macaroni Factory respectively [426] .
The Thylacoop5 account was created shortly after the blocking of a sock, inline with previous behaviour. It matches master and confirmed socks's interest in the Somali project, as well as their POV and idiosyncratic use of WP policy. The similarity in times of editing, as well as the high volume of edits matching sock-master are very clear. And it is evident they are not a new user. Please also note that Soupforone demanded checkuser to be performed multiple times previously which indicates they have means of evading technical scrutiny since they were later confirmed to be a sock through behavioural evidence. This is why I am requesting evaluation of behavioural evidence instead of technical evidence. Regards--Kzl55 (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Red X Unrelated. However, Thylacoop5 is warned that if they continue to edit logged out, they will be blocked. The logged-out editing is clearly excessive and abusive as it's both disruptive and an obvious evasion of scrutiny.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The warning has been read. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kzl55: Thylacoop5 has a clear focus on various articles wholly unrelated to the master or socks, i.e., Incel, related articles, and related topics. Coupled with the technical evidence, unless you can show that the master or a previous sock shares this focus, the close stands.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


10 June 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


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

Alpha231 [427] and Delta 343 [428]are quacking socks. Both editors massively overlap on their limited edits with Midnightexpress.Heliotom (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Heliotom (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[[429]]Heliotom (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The two accounts are  Confirmed to each other and to Skyblue100 (talk · contribs · count). All three accounts are Red X Unrelated to previously blocked socks in this case.  Blocked without tags the two unblocked accounts. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


21 June 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

  • Heogh (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • The account was created on May 18, few days after blocking socks Geneticanthro, Soupforone, ...etc. [430]
  • Same interest in Horn of Africa topics, specially the ones related to Somalia [431], [432], [433].
  • He/She doesn't seem to be a new user at all.
  • Persistent reference to the African Great Lakes Region and differentiating between it and the horn of Africa [434], [435].
  • The same behavior of trying to link East Africans from Horn of Africa to North Africa while distancing Horn Africans from other East Africans [436], [437]. Middayexpress/Soupforone also had the same habit [438].
  • The same behavior of trying to add some North African countries to the East Africa region page.[439],[440],[441]. Middayexpress/Soupforone also had this habit [442], [443].
  • The editing style of making a major edit quickly edit [444], [445], [446] followed by a minor edit [447],[448],[449]. Middayexpress/Soupforone also had this habit [450], [451]. Ryanoo (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Heogh is  Likely/ Inconclusive to Troyoleg. They are inconclusive because they are using a proxy. Heogh is  Confirmed to Zihepe (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Blocked both accounts without tags. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

25 June 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

  • 188.116.34.66 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 188.116.37.154 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 188.116.37.194 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 188.116.37.186 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 185.84.181.116 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 103.18.58.198 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 68.173.16.197 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 31.210.96.226 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 185.84.181.121 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))


  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Polish Proxies [452] [453] [454] [455] a Turkish webhosting service [456] New Zealand VPN [457]
  • Unlikely to be from those locations.
  • [458] 188.116.37.154 edited the Hamite page to reinforce Middayexpress/Soupforone Hamitic Hypothesis POV[459] before coming in contact with me.
  • Subsequently, several similar IPs start following my edits at the L3 page [460] [461] [462] [463]
  • 188.116.37.194 [464] edited the Kaffir (racial term) page which has been frequently edited by Middayexpress/Soupforone before [465]
  • Middayexpress/Soupforone have been one of the top contributors of the L3 page [466]
  • Middayexpress/Soupforone have been one of the top contributors of the Tutsi page [467]
  • Similar to banned Middayexpress/Soupforone sock Geneticanthro [468], [469], [470] these suspicious IPs make trivial edits on other haplogroup pages [471], [472], [473], [474], [475], [476]. A previous tactic of Middayexpress/Soupforone socks.
  • An IP involved in the L3 page[477] and similar to to those above removed Ruth Negga, an Irish Ethiopian, from the Black Irish list.[478] A common tactic used by Middayexpress/Soupforone. Here you have Soupforone removing Ruth Negga from the Black Irish list [479]. STRONG EVIDENCE
  • Uses the phrase In actuality,.[480] Typical of Soupforone / Middayexpress who is a French-speaking Canadian.
  • One of the IPs (188.116.37.186) finds a 7 year old debate I had with Middayexpress! Strong behavioral evidence! [481]
  • Latest one, 31.210.96.226, removes Ruth Negga from the Black Irish list and claims Ethiopia is a multiracial ethnicity (tactic used by Middayexpress to get Ethiopians removed from such lists). Also, it's a Turkish VPN, similar to many Middayexpress socks.
  • Another one, 185.84.181.121, shows up on the Black Irish page, edited the Luxmanda ‎page before a big favorite of Middayexpress/Soupforone.

Several IPs using VPNs are following my edits in regards to haplogroups and African genetics. Both specialties of banned Middayexpress/Soupforone. The IP editors at the L3 page in particular is very suspicious as it seems like a regular wiki editor who does not want to make an account.Wadaad (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 June 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

  • Mdrr5545 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • The account was created on May 24, few days after blocking socks Geneticanthro, Soupforone, ...etc. [482].
  • Same interest in Horn of Africa topics [483], [484], [485], [486].
  • He/She doesn't seem to be a new user at all.
  • The same behavior of referencing to the African Great Lakes Region and differentiating between it and the horn of Africa [487]. Middayexpress/Soupforone/Heogh also had this habit [488], [489].
  • The same behavior of trying to link East Africans from Horn of Africa to North Africa while distancing Horn Africans from other East Africans [490], [491]. Middayexpress/Soupforone/Heogh also had the same habit [492], [493], [494].
  • He/She made the same edits on the same pages with almost identical edit summaries [495], [496] shortly afterwards the block of the confirmed sock Heogh [497], [498]. Ryanoo (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Definitely him.Wadaad (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Can you double check and see if any of the VPN servers above match with that account. There's an overlap in time.Wadaad (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bbb23: I don't think that a checkuser will be beneficial or conclusive for this case as this user has a long history of using proxies and he before insisted on the use of checkuser and then later was confirmed to be a very persistent sockpuppeter. The behavioral evidence in this case is pretty clear, he/she made the very same edits on the same pages with almost identical edit summaries on Horn of Africa [499], [500] and on Kenya [501], [502] shortly afterwards the block of the confirmed sock Heogh. He also has the same obsession that Horn Africans aren't Black [503], [504]. Update: He also made more similar edits on Horn of Africa [505], [506] which shows very clearly the same interest in Horn of Africa topics as well as the same behavior of linking Horn of Africa to North Africa while distancing the horn from the rest of East Africa. It is also pretty obvious that he/she doesn't seem to be a new user at all. Ryanoo (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

02 August 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

  • 84.81.77.172 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • This IP started editing on June 7, shortly after blocking the confirmed socks Geneticanthro, Soupforone, ...etc [507].
  • He/She doesn't seem to be a new user at all.
  • Same interest in Horn of Africa topics [508], [509], [510].
  • The same interest in Land of Punt [511]. Middayexpress/Soupforone also had the same habit [512], [513], [514], [515].
  • The same Northeast Africa propagnda [516]. Middayexpress also had the same habit [517] Ryanoo (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • The IP edits are too old, and don't ask for a CU when an IP is involved. Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17 September 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Account created May 9 but went active May 14 2018, which is right inbetween the two listed May dates for Middayexpress socks on this page. Has edited largely Somalia-related topics, in line with other known socks of Middayexpress. Was initially reported at ANI for disruptive behavior (a known trait of Middayexpress) over the movement of pages without consensus and then massively creating redirect pages to forestall any attempt to move the article to a new title and has not provieded any reliable sources for their additions. In addition, allegations have been made at the ANI that this account has engaged in external canvassing to support his/her position ([518]), which was noted as a concern at the time of Middayexpress's first topic ban (predating the SPI, but documented at the time of the original topic ban). Per the mandate at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Archive/Placed by the Wikipedia community, I am listing this here for comparison of the suspected account. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upon further review, I'm listing User:GeelJire here as well since the account shares similar traits: Registered 25 February 2018 which was right int he middle of the original Middayexpress/Soupforone SPI case, same general interest in Somalia related topics which occupies nearly the entire editing history of the user. One SPI related case filed by the user, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Musab12345/Archive, which was related to a Somali article. I'm less sure about this one, its being listed here to cover bases and due to allegation from the Thylacoop5 that GeelJire may have forged the former's signature for offline canvassing. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: GeelJire is now officially named here as a result of the following ANI post, which lists both users in an attempt to push POV, which is a well defined part of Middayexpress's MO. To wit:

  • [519], [520], They collaborate to delete the Harti article, even though (a) "'harti' somali" produces 2,850 returns on google books and (b) harti unity is a founding principle of Puntland (see [521]).
  • [522], Similar deletion at Dhulbahante.
  • [523] Maligning of a Darod subclan. BTW, "Ogaden" is a Somali word meaning "knowledge", so there is no doubt GeelJire is mocking both the epithet and the IQ of this clan.
  • [524] Name change that deletes the statehood of a predominantly Darod state and insinuates its some Taliban outfit.
  • [525] WP:OR date and article wp:neo article title.
  • [526] Antipathy towards Dervish (read: Darod) flag
  • [527] WP:OR by adding Nur Ahmed Aman (read: Isaaq) with undiscernible source, someone with zero google books hits to the lede as a joint-state founder, which is impossible given that this was an autocracy.
  • [528] misrepresents source by not quoting the full quote. The full quote says that Hassan (read: a Darod) solely sent that letter. Geeljire makes it sound like various people wrote it.
  • [529] Geeljire whilst wp:socking as an IP (compare with current IP (85.210.182.208) makes the historical revisionist claim that Nur (an Isaaq), not Hassan (a Darod) founded Dervish state.
    • [530] Same historical revisionism
    • [531] Same historical revisionism
  • [532], [533] GeelJire misrepresents an advisor/lieutenant as a leader/commander (source
  • [534], [535], [536] Pushes WP:UNDUE by promoting the notion that Dhulbahante (a Darod subclan) were pro-colonial, even though most reliable sources describe Dhulbahante as the "strongest base" of anti-colonialism
  • [537] Canvassing one another.
  • [538] Kzl55 censures the following sources and publishers as unreliable: Newsweek, University of Manitoba Press
  • [539] kzl55 censures ref sourced to Random House
  • [540] kzl55 censures the following citations: Michigan State University, and [541] by historian John Drysdale (historian)
  • [542] kzl55 misrepresents source - original source says he was Hassan's (read: Darod) right-hand man, not the "movements right hand man" whatever that means.
  • [543] kzl removes a sourced infobox
  • [544] unexplained image removal pertaining Somaliland massacre, removes Hassan's positive alias, replaces with negative one
  • [545] Kzl55 adds false/unsourced claim that Sudi is a founder
  • [546] Kzl55 Removes Dhahar, despite the fact they have Puntland representatives on the ground ([547],
  • [548] KZL55 Inserts "Somaliland", despite the city only has Somalian or Puntland adminostrators
  • [549] KZL55 removes Warsangali (read: Darod) map even though the map is sourced at Commons
  • [550] kzl55 Adds a 20th century census to a 19th century state.
  • [551] tendentious/unsourced geographic edits

Based on the above, also listing Klz55 for you consideration. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A further look through the history of the Middayexpress case shows that Thylcoop5 was listed here on 29 May 2018 as a Suspected sockpuppet of Middayexpress; that case was closed alleging no relation but noting that the account had been cautioned with regard to behavior. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

With regards to external canvassing allegations on part of Thylacoop5, the word "clannist" used in the canvassing forum post [552] is only ever used by Thylacoop5 on Wikipedia [553], [554], [555], [556], they even created a redirect page with the word "clannist" [557].

Behavioural evidence from previous report (closed based on technical rather then behavioural evidence, Middayexpress/Soupforone have previously demanded technical-only review which alludes to their ability):

  • Account creation on 8 May [558], a few days following the block of confirmed socks Geneticanthro, Odriejh and Egezal [559]. Inline with previous behaviour where confirmed sock account Troyoleg was created a few days following the block of Soupforone, and confirmed sock Egezal was created a day following the block of Troyoleg (...etc).
  • Clearly not a new user (per their editing history [560]).
  • High volume of edits just like Middayexpress/Soupforone (so far 474 edits made in 20 days, 209 in the last 7 days [561]).
  • Similar editing time preferences: Many of Soupforone's previous socks showed similar time card behaviour, it appears that they have attempted to change that behaviour to avoid detection, however the similarities are still very clear. One example being the edits of Soupforone on 4 March (a Sunday), they started editing that day at 03:18 UTC and finished at 19:21 UTC [562]. This last Sunday (27th), Thylacoop5 started editing at 06:19 UTC and finishes at 22:29 [563], this is the same time slot shifted almost exactly 3 hours (possibly to avoid detection via time card), this is very clear when placed side by side:
Soupforone: 03:18 - 19:21
Thylacoop5: 06:19 - 22:29
  • Same POV and behaviour regarding Isaaq genocide article as Soupforone:
  • Soupforone has voted to delete the article twice [564], [565] (delete or rename). Thylacoop5 shares the same POV as they have attempted to rename the article [566], [567], as well as started an RfC on renaming the article [568].
  • Thylacoop5 pushes for the use of the term 'massacre' instead of 'genocide' [569], citing Google search results [570], this is identical to Soupforone's behaviour [571] [572] who also pushed for the use of 'massacre' citing Google search results, the only one in the discussion to do so.
  • Soupforone inserting WP:NEOLOGISM as an embedded comment citing Google results [573]. Thylacoop5 holds the same view and and similarly cites WP:NEOLOGISM [574].
  • In the past, Soupforone/Middayexpress tried to hide socking activity by having two of the socks revert one another or display public disagreement, examples include Troyoleg reverting Odriejh [575] (both confirmed socks) and Qevoja reverting Geneticanthro (again, both confirmed socks) [576]. Thylacoop5 takes this a step further by starting an SPI against socks Vukharttara and Zavaiw [577], [578], very unusual behaviour by a supposedly new editor, but inline with previous attempts by Soupforone to avoid detection. --Kzl55 (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can we please not close this until behavioural evidence is evaluated? Previous confirmed sock (Soupforone) campaigned for only technical evaluation instead of behavioural evaluation [579], [580], [581] (...etc) judging by how confident they were, they had the means to evade technical scrutiny. Behavioural evidence, POV, idiosyncratic habits, time of registration, levels of activity all point to Thylacoop5 being a sock of Middayexpress. --Kzl55 (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Wondering if you have seen the above? I know Thylacoop5 received a block, but could you hold off on the closing until behavioural evidence is reviewed please? As you can see this is becoming a recurrent issue, and letting the community review behavioural evidence presented and possibly submit additional evidence may help resolve this one way or another. Earlier, @TomStar81: who is familiar with Middayexpress's saga had indicated that he believes Thylacoop5 is likely a sock of Middayexpress for many behavioural reasons [582], and the evidence is compelling. I request that you let the SPI play out and be decided based on behavioural evidence if possible. --Kzl55 (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It won't matter here, but if we pass general sanctions I'll have greater leeway to monitor the account and block as needed. For now let us let this close so as to clean the slate such as it were, and we'll redirect our efforts to the articles. Trust me on this, I've waltzed this waltz before and switching out mozart for beathoven's 9th is going to freak a lot of unconstructive people working the Horn of Africa region out. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, clean slate it is. I have faith! --Kzl55 (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bbb23: Are 62.8.81.177, 84.81.77.172, 73.125.116.150, or 79.71.22.5 related to Thylacoop5? I ask because he was explicitly informed by you when closing the case of 29 May 2018 that "...if they continue to edit logged out, they will be blocked. The logged-out editing is clearly excessive and abusive as it's both disruptive and an obvious evasion of scrutiny." On these grounds then, if any of the isp accounts provided here which have edited since the warning on the current page in question match, would it be acceptable to move forward with a block? TomStar81 (Talk) 15:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The three listed users are Red X Unrelated to each other and to socks in the archive. However, GeelJire and NoShaqo (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are  Confirmed to each other and blocked without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TomStar81: Policy prohibits me from connecting IP(s) to named accounts. However, if you believe the IP edits are connected to Thylacoop5, you are free to block, although please do not label Thylacoop5 a sock of Middayexpress.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing more to do here. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18 September 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same interest as Soupforone socks. Edits a lot of articles on archaeology that usually have very little editing, except for multiple versions of Soupforone socks. Misuses archaeology, craniometry and genetics to justify the socks' preferred POV.

1. Aterian here[583] restores pretty much this exact same edit made by Soupforone[584] in the article on Kerma culture; the content, picture, and source are all the same.
2. One of this sockpuppet's favorite things to do is to add ridiculously long quotes to the quote tag when sourcing, which are pretty much copy-pasted entirely from the source. Aterian does this here[585]; this habit is performed multiple times by various socks of Soupforone - as Cherue [586], as Geneticanthro [587] here, and as Soupforone [588] here, [589] here, and [590] here.
3. Dislikes the use of "North Africa(n)" and generally tries to replace that terminology with "Maghreb". Aterian does this multiple times here while editing warring [591], Here, Soupforone removes "North Africa" and replaces it with "Maghrebi" [592]. This is linked to this sock's preference to link everything to Afroasiatic while minimizing the links to Sub-Saharan Africa. Both cases are inappropriate, since the sources actually use North Africas (I can attest to that on the source used in the later one, which the poster Aterian was editing warring against makes a similar argument about the source using North Africa vs Maghreb). Fraenir (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Clerk assistance requested: - Could an admin clerk please merge this into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress? Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This might be the same person, but I don't see enough evidence here to draw that conclusion definitively. The quote described in point 2 was already present in the article (the spacing in the diff makes it look like it was new content). Point 1 is a revert, so it stands to reason that the content would be identical. One revert and a common position, especially one that might be rooted in nationalism, is not clear enough evidence for me. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

04 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

  • Itaren (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • This account was created on May 10, few days after blocking socks Geneticanthro, Soupforone, ...etc. [593].
  • Same interests as Middayexpress/Soupforone . All this new user edits are TOTALLY focused on pages which were persistently edited before by Middayexpress/Soupforone [594], [595], [596], [597], [598], [599], [600], [601], [602], [603], [604], [605], [606], [607], [608], [609].
  • He doesn't seem to be a new user at all. There is NO WAY that this user is a new one.
  • He did identical edits on the same page here [610], [611] ,and he was also edit warring with other users over those edits [612], [613], [614].
  • The same persistent obsession with redefining Black Nationalism and Pan Africanism [615], [616].
  • The same obsession with the Pan African flag [617], [618], [619], [620]. He did almost identical edits on the same page here [621], [622]
  • He uses the same language and style of writing and he has the same behavior of making fake propaganda, attacking and threatening other users who don’t agree with him [623], [624], [625], [626], [627]
  • The same habit of using the word “formatting” or “format” in edit summaries [628].[629], [630], [631].
  • The same behavior of trying to link some parts of Sub-Saharan Africa to North Africa [632], [633], [634].
  • The editing style of making a major edit quickly followed by a minor edit such as [635], [636] and [637], [638] Middayexpress/Soupforone also had the same habit [639], [640].
  • The same behavior of editing the languages section (which was persistently edited before by Middayexpress/Soupforone) on the same page [641] [642], [643], [644].
  • In addition to the checkuser, I would like the admins to thoroughly evaluate the behavioral evidence (which is very clear in this case) as this user is known for using VPNs, proxies and so on, he before insisted on the use of checkuser and then later was confirmed to be a super persistent sock puppeteer!!!. Thanks in advance. Ryanoo (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Just wanted to point out, if it isn't already obvious, that this is an attempt to confuse the issue in a content dispute. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 10:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ -Roxy, in the middle. wooF Thank you for your input. On what basis did you build this conclusion??!! I think the one who is clearly confusing the issue is this suspected sock which is an additional evidence of his sock puppetry as Middayexpress/Soupfrone had the same habit, this suspected sock was disruptively editing a Wikipedia page and was refusing to engage in the talk page and after many warnings, he did and once I refuted his claims, he refused to continue the discussion on the talk page and came to attack me personally and threaten me on my page which is also an additional evidence of his sock puppetry as Middayexpress/Soupfrone had the same exact habit!!!!. Is it wrong to fight the persistent vandals and sock puppeteers such as Middayexpress/Soupfrone?? Is this your way to reward me for fighting vandalism and sock puppeteers?!! Sorry Mr. Roxy, but I really can't get you. It seems you don't know much about Middayexpress/Soupfrone and his very long history of persistence vandalism and sock puppeting. I know this person very well and I have been battling him for quite a long time, this guy has been vandalizing Wikipedia for many years. I am sure that would't be your conclusion, If you know this guy very well or If you read the report carefully or If you take 5 minutes to evaluate the super clear behavioral evidence!!!!. I agree with you that I might have used a harsh way in dealing with this suspected sock and I am really sorry for this as It is against the policy, but I did this only because I am 100 % SURE, no not 100 %, because I am 10000% sure of what I am saying about this suspected sock. I am a human Mr. Roxy, not a robot and any human with blood running through his veins and a bit of scientific honesty will get angry If he watches vandals and unchallenged sock puppeteers destroying one of main the sources of knowledge in our world. Unfortunately the persistence appearance of people like Middayexpress/Soupfrone on Wikipedia discourages the good users from editing and are why Wikipedia occasionally gets a bad name. Thank you again for your input and sorry for any inconvenience. Have a nice day. Ryanoo (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@~Oshwah~ Why did you decline the check user request??!!!, The clerk can compare it to the IP and user agent information of the other many confirmed socks of him on the archive page which the clerks had already done many times, haven't you check the archive of sock investigations of Middayexpress [645] It is not only the sock Soupforone, this isn't the first investigation case, If you check the archive, you will many other confirmed socks were used by Middayexpress/Soupforone which the clerk can compare their the IP and user agent information to that of this suspected sock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanoo (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryanoo - The IP and user agent information that CheckUsers can pull from accounts are only stored for three months. Since both of these accounts have not edited for over three months, this information is now gone and there is nothing available for any CheckUsers to pull or compare. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know if this could be relevant to the investigation but the only other account I’ve had on Wiki was @Prochristi: and is a better representation of the beginning of my activities on Wikipedia.

For @Oshwah: ‘s consideration. 23:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itaren (talk • contribs) 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that this is going to return a positive hit. Middayexpress et al are usually more interested in the horn of Africa, not north Africa, and I see none of the usual indicators such as rapid firing of accounts. My guess is that this is a misplaced attempt at a retaliatory strike for having had the courage to declare BS when BS needed to be declared. All the same, it should be looked into just to be safe, but I'd give 2-1 that we won't find anything definitive. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The latest contributions by both Middayexpress and Soupforone exceed the threshold where IP and user agent information is stored per Wikipedia's privacy policy. A Checkuser would find nothing to compare here. Declining CU check. CLERK IN TRAINING ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • This report appears to be going nowhere. The filer, who is the principal editor arguing their report, is now topic-banned from commenting about this case. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

30 December 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

  • Bretpin (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Bariiyo (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Bretpin
  • Fresh account that appears out of nowhere just to discuss my edits on East African haplogroups, similar to what Middayexpress/Soupforone did in mid-2018 using VPN IPs. See: 25 June 2018 Suspected sockpuppets of Middayexpress / Soupforone
  • Behavioral evidence: user is mainly interested in Horn of Africa lineages, just like Middayexpress/Soupforone.
  • A bizarre dislike for the term Northern Africa (see him using it in "ironic" scare quotes and even condescendingly calling it a hypothetical place here: [646] just like Middayexpress' sock Soupforone idiosyncratic dislike for the term North Africa / Northern Africa. [647])
  • Almost certainly he is using VPNs to hide his true IP. If this is not the case, he will have a Canadian IP from the same region as Middayexpress/Soupforone.
Bariiyo
  • Same interest as Soupforone / Middayexpress socks. Edits a lot of articles on archaeology that usually have very little editing, except for multiple versions of Soupforone socks. Misuses archaeology, craniometry and genetics to justify the socks' preferred POV.
  • Behavioral evidence: interested in Horn of Africa lineages and ancient Northeast African history, just like Middayexpress/Soupforone.
  • Is likely using VPNs to hide his true IP. If not, he will have a Canadian IP from the same region as Middayexpress/Soupforone.
  • A bizarre dislike for the term Northern Africa (see him using it in "ironic" scare quotes here: [648] just like Middayexpress' sock Soupforone idiosyncratic dislike for the term North Africa / Northern Africa. [649])

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

  • Bretpin and Bariiyo are  Technically indistinguishable from each other and very  Likely to Arboleh (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). They are Red X Unrelated to previous socks.  Blocked without tags. Do not tag. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

02 April 2019

Suspected sockpuppets


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

The accounts reported in this SPI are Lokiszm7 and Magherbin. Their style of editing, projects of interest, POV, contentious editing (particularly on talk pages) all points to them being socks of long term vandal Middayexpress/Soupforone. Below is behavioural evidence for both accounts. Behavioural evidence is important in this case given the scale of evasion and proven ability to circumvent checkuser checks.

Behavioural evidence against Lokiszm7:

  • Lokiszm7 exhibits interest in the same projects as Middayexpress/Soupforone, particularly in relation to Horn of Africa projects. Their most edited article is Harari People [650]. On that article, the top editor is Middayexpress, and the second highest editor is Lokiszm7 [651] (sock Soupforone is also on the list, ranked 6th highest).
  • Same applies for many other articles on Lokiszm7's top edited list [652], [653], [654].
  • Clearly not a new editor, this is their first ever edit [655].
  • Creation of articles related to Somali politicians [656], (which we know is of interest of Middayexpress [657], [658], [659], [660], [661] (...etc), as well as Soupforone [662]).
  • The same idiosyncratic editing style of making double edits, a major edit quickly followed by a minor (+1) edit [663]. This habit is seen in the edits of both Middayexpress and Soupforone as discussed in previous reports (above) [664], [665].
  • Geographical location in Canada as per their Google.ca links [666], [667], identical to Middayexpress [668] and Soupforone [669].
  • Similarities in writing style, particularly in the idiosyncratic use of "Makhzumi" to refer to Sultanate of Showa. The only reference to Sultanate of Showa as "Makhzumi" on Wikipedia talk pages comes from confirmed sock Soupforone [670] and Lokiszm7 [671]. the search function confirms this [672] (the other results are not related to Horn of Africa projects). This is significant also because it was Middayexpress that created the original redirect to Makhzumi in the first place [673].
  • This is a minor point but relevant to this report. In creating Abdullahi Sadiq, Lokiszm7 links to "Dervish State" (instead of "Dervish movement") [674]. Middayexpress/Soupforone has a strong bias for the use of "Dervish State" and inserted this in many articles [675] [676] [677] (...etc). More importantly, Lokiszm7's knowledge of and use of this link is strange given that the article's name was changed from "Dervish State" (the name pushed by Middayexpress) to "Dervish Movement" prior to their registration, much to the protest of suspected sock Thylacoop5 [678].

Behavioural evidence against Magherbin:

  • Again, Magherbin exhibits same interest in projects related to Middayexpress/Soupforone. Particularly in relation to Horn of Africa/North Africa.  
  • Middayexpress/Soupforone is a top editor of most articles in Magherbin's top edited list [679] ([680], [681], [682], [683], [684], [685], [686]).
  • Clearly not a new editor, per their editing history [687]
  • Same idiosyncratic use of "Makhzumi" to refer to Showa kingdom as exhibited by Middayexpress/Soupforone and Lokiszm7 above [688].
  • Same use of Google.ca links [689]


Beyond abusing multiple accounts. They are also using multiple IPs to evade scrutiny. An example of this is the insertion of the aforementioned "Makhzumi" terminology favoured by Middayexpress by this IP: [690]

Note how the inserted new Google books link points to Google.ca and yet the IP address originates from Ghana [691].

Another example is the insertion of "Makhzumi" in the Ethiopian Empire article by this IP: [692]

Again, the Google Books links the IP is using point to Google.ca, yet the IP itself points to Mauritius [693].


The two following edits were made one right after the other on the Ethiopian Empire article, separated by minutes, one with an IP from Mauritius, the other IP was from South Africa, they were clearly by the same editor using two different IP locations: [694]

From previous SPIs, its clear Midday abuses IP access on Wikipedia to evade detection. It seems the way they work is via inserting content as an IP using a VPN and then continuing to edit using one of their dormant socks.

Another IP inserting "Makhzumi" (this IP has been blocked since): [695]

Also another IP inserting "Makhzumi" from NewZealand: [696]


It is a shame that the powers requested previously by TomStar81 to combat this level of evasive behaviour were not granted. Middayexpress/Soupforone is making it clear they are not stopping any time soon.

It is also worth noting that previously suspected sock of Middayexpress, Thylacoop5 (reported above), has since been blocked for socking activity [697].

Pinging editors who have contributed to previous Middayexpress SPIs: @Cordless Larry, Drmies, Ben MacDui, Nick-D, TomStar81, EvergreenFir, and Wadaad: Kzl55 (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Given that the greater middayexpress spi page now has verified sockpuppet accounts and further accusations of sockpuppetry against accounts going back 14 months, and given the community's failure to pass an authorization for discretionary sanctions for Horn of Africa related topics, I wonder if we have enough to formally open a page for middayexpress at WP:LTA? At this point, given the ongoing nature of the problem and without any help from the community per se, this is perhaps the best I could offer to help stem this problem in any meaningful capacity for the time being. If an LTA entry doesn't sound like the right approach at the moment then the logged editing restriction will have to do for now. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I accept your assessment that the case is messy from a CU POV, but the behavioural evidence presented either in this current SPI or in previous reports has been reasonably straightforward. I think Tom's proposal is reasonable given the failure of previous attempts to gain community approval for measures to stop such long-standing evasion. Would you be more open to this if the LTA entry is restricted to non-CU elements (i.e. behavioural aspects only)? I am happy to contribute along with other editors to the creation of an LTA entry for Middayexpress. --Kzl55 (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kzl55: Good job on the catch, I suspected it was him, but wasn't sure this time. He seems to be changing his style and is noting and adopting to the behavior evidences we put down here. Be aware. Wadaad (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: I thought not, an LTA was suggested here only because we've had limited success with other measures taken. (Incidentally, I was doing some research on LTAs for the last few weeks which is why I made the connection to an LTA earlier at ANI - incorrectly, in that case.) I suggested it here due to the overall time of the SPI cases - its been ongoing for almost 14 months now - however the LTA cases I read suggest that they are for editors who are perhaps more...aggressive with their positions as they relate to Wikipedia. With the failure of community approved discretionary sanctions and without sufficient support for an LTA page at this time, the only other thing I could think of to suggest to help take the pressure off would be seeing if we could authorize extended confirm protection for know ME/SFO pages that end up routinely targeted, but again that requires community consensus which I doubt we will get. I wonder if it would be possible for us to take the matter to the arbitration committee with the evidence we have concerning disruptive editing; if we could get them to rule on the matter we might be able to back door discretionary sanctions or extended confirmed protection for the page(s). In any event, thanks for the reply. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: With regards to your comment below I realize that your hand is largely tied here, but for some idea of how messy this/these SPI(s) could you give us a number on a scale from 1-10, 1 being the cleanest and 10 being the messiest? TomStar81 (Talk) 16:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Whats your opinion on the proposal for an LTA for Middayexpress? Its been borne out that Bbb23 is adamantly against the idea of a dedicated LTA page for Middayexpress, but I'd be interested on getting your take before this disappears into the archive. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, TomStar81. Their edits and editing patterns escape me sometimes. I think LTA pages are there primarily to help guide the editors and admins who are not well acquainted with a certain person, but I can't really see how one would help many editors here, since the complexities here are far-reaching. Sorry, that's really all the take that I have. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The following accounts are  Confirmed to each other and  Unlikely to any previous socks:
    • Lokiszm7
    • Magherbin
    • Kikolio (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Betamhara (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  •  Blocked without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TomStar81: As perhaps the CU most familiar with this case, I am strongly against the creation of an LTA page. Without going into details, this case happens to be one of the messiest in almost every way, and any LTA page would be neccessarily equally incoherent.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kzl55: I will likely delete any LTA page created.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TomStar81: Sorry, but your question struck me so funny I can't stop laughing long enough to give you an answer (not laughing at you). FWIW, I'm speaking only about this case.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:TomStar81, I can't speak for Bbb, and their experience with Midday is much more technically detailed than mine--but I've dealt with Midday, their socks, their socks' fake socks, and their good hand-bad hand counterparts' socks. Ima go with a solid 8.9. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This LTA discussion is not useful. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10 May 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

  • Heshmenza84 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Gokhantastsemir (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Praye_pat4 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Nairnewyschooled7 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Nsynancedp (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Awalbaacaashaqa (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Callvaughnburd0 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • 92.10.234.128 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 92.10.236.156 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 92.10.232.128 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 92.19.185.6 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 92.19.182.212 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 92.19.182.121 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 92.19.184.101 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 92.19.180.106 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 92.0.197.140 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 92.6.176.166 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 92.13.131.160 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 79.67.69.99 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 79.67.71.6 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 79.67.78.248 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 79.67.85.55 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 79.67.65.179 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 79.67.70.249 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 79.67.73.223 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 88.104.44.175 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 88.104.42.220 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

It seems long-term disruptive editor to the project Middayexpress/Soupforone (etc etc) continues to try and evade sanctions using multiple socks and IP addresses. Below is behaviour evidence concerning suspected socks and IPs.

With regards to accounts Heshmenza84 and Gokhantastsemir:

  • Clearly not new to Wikipedia per their editing history [698], [699]:
  • Very close registration dates:
Heshmenza84 on 15/14/2019
Gokhantastsemir on 23/04/2019

(Accounts were created only a couple of weeks following the blocking of multiple socking accounts including Magherbin and Lokiszm7 on 2 April via the most recent SPI).

  • Edits of both accounts are related to to Dervish/Dhulbahante: Heshmenza84 [700], [701], ([702] inserting image belonging to a Dhulbahante athlete in the Somalia article) / Gokhantastsemir [703], [704], [705]. This is a known area of interest of Middayexpress. For instance Dervish Movement article has blocked socking accounts Middayexpress, Soupforone and Thylacoop5 in its top 10 editors list [706]. The article of the leader of Dervish has the same three editors in its top 10 editors list [707], Dhulbahante article also has Middayexpress in its top 10 editors list [708] ... etc etc.
  • Near identical pattern in their editing histories of:
  1. Registration of accounts, shortly followed by:
  2. One small random edit elsewhere to establish history: Heshamenza84 [709]/ Gokhantastsemir [710] and then:
  3. Creation of article related to Midday's area of interest (Dervish/Dhulbahante) in their respective sandboxes [711], [712] .. please also note the rapid style of editing just like Midday/Soupforone. And lastly:
  4. Both suspected socks have edited Jabane [713]. This article is within the Dervish/Dhulbahante area of interest. It is very obscure, with a total page views of 6. These two editors made the only two edits in its history and it was created by one of them.

Please note that this pattern of editing is exactly that of confirmed sock Windowfamine. Looking through their editing history, they made a number of seemingly unrelated edits within the first hour or so of creating the account [714], this was promptly followed by creation of an article in their draft space related to the same subject i.e. Dervish/Dhulbahante [715], [716].

  • Idiosyncratic use of "Dhulbahante Sultanate" by Heshmenza84 in their article draft [717] is identical to confirmed sock Windofamine's use of the same phrasing also in an article creation ([718], [719] and 4 calling it Garaadship instead of Sultanate here).).

- Near identical timestamp of the two editors with Heshamenza84 editing around 10am [720] and Gokhantastsmir at 12pm [721].

- Gokhantastsemir created Dervish force article in which they used an obscure media file originally uploaded by confirmed sock Windowfamine [722].

- They have also added a media file related to a Dhulbahante athlete [723] which was uploaded to Commons by new user Beeshashirka (account created 21 March or or 5 days after blocking of Thylacoop5 and Windowfamine [724]). The same file was inserted into other articles via IP abuse e.g. [725], [726]. There is a clear pattern of evasion of detection using IPs, sometimes by uploading files/creating articles using dormant socks and then inserting content/populating articles via IP. IPs used appear to mostly be coming from these two ranges "92..." and "79.67...", more on that below).

Related accounts with the exact same behaviour:

Praye_pat4

  • Please note, account also created within the same timeframe (22/04, a day before Gokhantastsemir account was created [727], [728]).
  • Exact same behaviour of immediately creating an article in their sandbox related to Dervish/Dhulbahante [729] as Heshmenza84 and Gokhantastsemir (above).
  • Same idiosyncratic use of Dhulbahante Sultanate ([730], [731], [732], [733] ..etc) as suspected sock Heshmenza84 [734] which in turn is identical to confirmed sock Windowfamine's use of the same unique "Dhulbahante Sultanate" phrasing also in article drafts/created ([735], [736], and [737] calling it Garaadship instead of Sultanate here).

Also:

Nsynancedp

  • Accounted creation on 8 March [738], a couple of weeks following creation of confirmed sock Windowfamine (21 February) [739].
  • Exact same behaviour pattern exhibited above by other suspected socks of making few early edits, followed by a series of edits to article related to Dhulbahante Sultanate ([740], [741] ...etc).
  • Said articles they edited were originally created by confirmed sock Windowfamine [742], [743].
  • Identical behaviour as confirmed sock Windowfamine in changing titles of multiple articles related to Somali politicians ( by shortening the name/removing middle name): ([744], [745]). An extensive list of identical edits shortening Somali article names by removing middle names done by confirmed sock Windowfamine [746].

Other accounts with the same behavioural pattern/interest:  

Nairnewyschooled7

  • Account seem dormant, but it is used almost exclusively to add content related to the idiosyncratic "Dhulbahante Sultanate/Garaadship" ([747], [748], [749], [750]).
  • Exact same timestamp as suspected sock Gokhantastsmir [751], [752] both at 12pm.
  • Impressively they manage to create an account, split pages, add content to multiple articles, create categories, remove redirects all in under 20 minutes of registration, all editing happened within Midday's area of interest, i.e. clearly not a new account [753].

Other seemingly one-time use dormant accounts:

Awalbaacaashaqa, Callvaughnburd0

  • The Awalbaacaashaqa account also seems dormant. It was used only once to add content related to Dervish/Dhulbahante [754].
  • Clearly not a new account per their editing history [755].
  • Account created on 23 November 2018, only a few days after creation of Callvaughnburd0 (16 November [756]), confirmed sock Kikolio (18 November [757]) and confirmed sock Lokiszm7 account (19 November [758]).
  • Identical timestamp to suspected socks Nairnewyschooled7 and Gokhantastsmir [759], [760], [761] all three at 12pm.
  • Prior to Awalbaacaashaqa creating the article, another possible dormant sock account Callvaughnburd0 requested a redirect to be created (this seems to be their method of avoiding detection) [762]. A few days later, Awalbaacaashaqa removed the redirect and started populating the article [763].
  • Callvaughnburd0 account was created on the same on 16 November 2018 [764], two days before the creation of confirmed sock account Kikolio (18 November [765]) and three days before the creation of confirmed sock Lokiszm7 account (19 November [766]).
  • Callvaughnburd0 has an identical timestamp to suspected sock Heshmenza84 [767], [768].

So creation process of Kabr Ogaden article went through 1) request of redirect by Callvaughnburd0 to facilitate creation 2) editing by Awalbaacaashaqa and 3) further editing by an IP from the same (92...) range (discussed below). If we exclude automated/bot edits, no one else edited this article per edit history [769].


This same process was used to create a number of other articles of interest to sockmaster, some examples below:

Dhulbahante garaadship/Dhulbahante Sultanate:

  • Requested as a redirect first by IP (same "92..." range) [770]. Then as soon as a redirect was created by an unrelated editor, suspected sock Nairnewyschooled7 is used to remove the actual redirect placed and add desired content [771]. Rest of the editing is done by IPs across the (92...) and (79.67...) ranges.

Korebas:

  • Redirect requested by IP from the same range [772]. As soon as the redirect requested is created suspected sock Nairnewyschooled7 is used to remove the actual redirect placed and add content to make it an article [773]. Rest of editing is done by IPs across the (92...) and (79.67...) ranges.

Same process in Garad_Ali_IV [774], Garad_Ali_V [775], Shirshoore [776] ... etc etc.

Abuse of IP addresses to circumvent their block:  

A number of IP addresses are also included in this report for exhibiting identical behaviour to accounts named above. Editing obscure content within the area of interest of sockmaster, inserting files originally uploaded by blocked socks/suspected socks and interacting with suspected socks reported above. IP abuse seems to be done in tandem with use of socking accounts. All the IP edits are clearly done by the same editor and seem to come from a specific range. Examples of this behaviour include:

  • IPs from aforementioned range "92..." editing obscure file uploaded to Commons by confirmed sock Windowfamine [777], only edits in the file's history are that of confirmed sock Windowfamine and IPs from that specific range.
  • Sandbox of suspected sock Heshmenza84 is edited by IP from the same IP range "92..." clearly indicating IP and account also belong to the same editor [778].
  • The two IP addresses above (related to Windowfamine and Heshmenza84 respectively) have the same ISP (UK TalkTalk) [779], [780] (possibly an indication of the VPN they are using?).
  • Actually, all IPs in this report, no matter the range, seem to share the same ISP (UK TalkTalk).
  • Dervish force, an obscure article with total page views of 25 created by suspected sock Gokhantastsemir [781], was edited by IP from the same range as above immediately the day following creation [782] indicating both edits were made by the same user.
  • Use of IPs from the same range to insert obscure media files originally uploaded by confirmed sock WindowFamine into articles [783]. Middayexpress is the second top editor of this article [784].
  • Other example of use of IPs from the same range to insert media files originally uploaded by blocked socks into articles [785], [786].
  • Editing a very obscure category of "Dhulbahante Garaadship" (daily average views less than 1) which was created by suspected sock Nairnewyschooled7 by IP [787].
  • Use of IPs from the same "92..." range to request creation of redirects related to previously discussed area of interest Dervish/Dhulbahante (instead of possibly risking their sock accounts?): ([788], [789], [790], [791] ... etc). These requests are shortly followed by edits to the same article by suspected sock Nairnewyschooled7 [792], [793].
  • Same editor editing from IP range (92...) seem to also be editing from IP range (79.67...). They seem to be the only editors populating a number of obscure articles related to "Dhulbahante Sultanate" area of interest discussed above e.g. (ignoring automated maintenance edits) [794], [795], [796], [797], [798], [799]... etc etc.
  • Like the (92...) IPs discussed above, the (79.67...) range also share the London location and ISP (UK TalkTalk) [800], [801], [802].
  • Editing history of very obscure "Dhulbahante Sultanate" related article (total 11 views [803]) which was originally created by confirmed sock Windowfamine by IP from the same range currently active in quick succession further confirms IPs belong to the same editor operating confirmed sock Windowfamine. Windowfamine made an edit to the article on 4 March at 02:25 [804], the IP came minutes later at 02:47 to make a correction [805]. This happened only a couple of hours after the article's creation [806].
  • Same thing happened a few days later with a totally different suspected sock account (Nsynancedp, part of this report above) and the"79.67..." IP also from the same range currently active [807].
  • As stated above, an obscure article with total page views of 25 [808] created by suspected sock Gokhantastsemir [809], was edited by IP from the same range discussed above immediately the day following creation [810].
  • It seems Midday is using these two IP ranges "92.." and "79.67..." when attempting to populate articles related to their area of interest "Dhulbahante Garaadship" to avoid detection. A quick look at the editing history of these IPs confirms this:
  • 92.10.234.128
  • 92.10.236.156
  • 92.19.185.6
  • 92.0.197.140
  • 92.6.176.166
  • 92.19.182.212
  • 92.19.184.101
  • 92.10.232.128
  • 92.19.180.106
  • 92.19.182.121
  • 92.13.131.160
  • 79.67.69.99
  • 79.67.71.6
  • 79.67.85.55
  • 79.67.65.179
  • 79.67.70.249
  • 79.67.73.223
  • 88.104.44.175
  • 88.104.42.220

Relevant additional information (these accounts are not reported due to lack of activity on the English Wikipedia, but seem like dormant socks):

Midday/Soupforone also seem to be using auxiliary accounts for editing content related to their area of interest on Commons/SimpleWiki/SomaliWiki/Wiktionary:

  • Diinlaartag used exclusively for editing Dervish/Dhulbahante content particularly ones related to "Dhulbahante Sultanate" on Commons [811], as well as Somali Wikipedia [812]. No activity on English Wikipedia.
  • Turningju77 used exclusively for propagating "Dervish Sultanate" on Simple English Wikipedia [813]. No activity on English Wikipedia.
  • Fiiiri666 used exclusively for editing "Dhulbahante Sultanate" related content on Simple English Wiki [814] as well as Somali Wiki [815]. No activity on English Wikipedia.
  • Aywurtheme8 used across Simple Wiki [816], Somali Wiki [817] and Wictionary [818] exclusively for adding content related to Dervish/Dhulbahante. No activity on English Wikipedia.
  • IP address with the same range as discussed above 92.13.132.55 used to create Dervish State article on Simple English Wikipedia.

All three accounts were created within a short time frame between the end of November and mid December 2018:

  • Diinlaartag registration date: 2018-11-27 04:03
  • Aywurtheme8 registration date: 2018-12-05 13:33
  • Turningju77 registration date: 2018-12-15 10:51
  • Fiiiri666 registration date: 2018-12-12 14:40

Worth noting also how registration dates correlate with suspected sock reported in this report:

  • Callvaughnburd0 registration date: 2018-11-16 09:27
  • Awalbaacaashaqa registration date: 2018-11-23 10:43
  • Nairnewyschooled7 registration date: 2018-11-30 11:00

As well as confirmed socks:

  • Kikolio registration date: 2018-11-18 21:21
  • Lokiszm7 registration date: 2018-11-19 12:21
  • Bariiyo registration date: 2018-12-01 20:18
  • Bretpin registration date: 2018-12-20 17:21

Pinging editors who have contributed to previous Middayexpress SPIs: @TomStar81, Cordless Larry, Drmies, Wadaad, Ben MacDui, Nick-D, and EvergreenFir:. Kzl55 (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

@Bbb23: Many thanks. With regards to IPs, some of them are active or have been active very recently e.g. [819], [820], [821], [822], [823], [824], [825], [826], [827], [828], [829], [830], [831], [832]. These edits were made within the last month or so. Also, I see articles they created via sock accounts were deleted, can anything be done about the articles they created via IPs (by requesting redirects first and removing redirects to then populate articles as discussed above) e.g. Dhulbahante garaadship, Korebas, Garad_Ali_IV, Garad_Ali_V and others? I am happy to list them here if it would make things easier. Thanks again. Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've actually been investigating this myself here, though I've not yet drawn any conclusions the results posted above do jive with what I've been seeing in my own collection of accumulating evidence. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TomStar81: Great initiative, some of the editors you listed were before my time so will do some reading on them. Can others contribute to it or are you keeping it as a personal record of your investigation? Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bbb23: Thanks for the clarification. If you meant the IP that posted yesterday on Heshmenza84's sandbox, I was going to add it to the list but I think their only edit was to that sandbox which was deleted, so unfortunately their editing history has no record of their edit referenced above or dates of activity [833]. The TLDR answer to your question about IPs creating redirects, you are correct, they cant, but what our long-term sockmaster did as a workaround was to make a redirect request as an IP (so that other editors create a page with the redirect for them) [834]. Then as soon as the redirect was created by an innocent editor responding to their request [835] suspected socks (in this case Nairnewyschooled7) is used to remove the actual redirect placed and add desired content [836]. They have performed the same trick on Garad_Ali_IV [837], Garad_Ali_V [838], Shirshoore [839], Korebas, Kabr Ogaden ... etc etc. With regards to time, this report was the abridged version actually (ha!). Will get the rest of the articles created via IPs tagged (no lists for you), many thanks for your help. Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kzl55: You're welcome to post on the page if you need/want to, just be mindful of the requests given in the sections and read the edit notice before digging in. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The following accounts are  Confirmed to Thylacoop5 (talk · contribs · count):
    • Heshmenza84 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Gokhantastsemir (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Praye pat4 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Nsynancedp (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Monthlysaakh (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  •  Blocked and tagged. The remaining listed named accounts are  Stale. The IPs' edits are too old to take any action. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kzl55: Generally, IPs who haven't edited in the last couple of days are already too old. I didn't look at all your diffs (I don't know where you find the time!), but other than the first one who edited yesterday and which you didn't put in the list, it looks like to me like none of the IPs fit the criteria for blocking. This is true not just in this case but in almost all cases. As for g5ing pages that were created by IPs, can IPs create redirects? I didn't know that. In any event, no, I don't want a list (smile) as it would just mean more work for me, but you can try to tag them as g5, explain why on the Talk page, and see how well you fare.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1 August 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

  • Xiriid (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Crowi21 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • 155.254.115.73 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Long-term disruptive editor Middayexpress/Soupforone (etc etc) continues to try and evade sanctions using multiple socks. Below is behavior evidence concerning suspected socks.

Xiriid
  • Xiriid [840] has the same interests in anthropology, the Horn of Africa, the Land of Punt, and genetics similar to the banned disruptive editor Middayexpress/Soupforone.[841] [842]
  • Xiriid has a bizarre dislike for the term Northern Africa (see here [843] as he uses "ironic" scare quotes similar to banned Middayexpress' sock Bretpin calling it condescendingly a hypothetical place here: [844] and Middayexpress' sock Soupforone idiosyncratic dislike for the term North Africa / Northern Africa. [845])
  • Xiriid stalks my edits, similar to what banned Middayexpress/Soupforone socks did in the past. [846] [847]
  • Xiriid is active on the E-M215 page to defend a POV shared [848] with banned sock Bretpin.[849]
  • Xiriid doesn't seem like a new user and is already deeply familiar with wikipedia rules and regulations similar to the user Middayexpress.[850]
  • Xiriid's first edit[851] was a page Soupforone was interested in and edited before.[852]
  • Is likely using IPs connected to the various Middayexpress/Soupforone socks or is using a VPN to hide themselves. If this is not the case, he will have a Canadian IP from the same region as Middayexpress/Soupforone.
Crowi21
  • Crowi21 topic of interest is similar to the above.
  • Crowi21 placed a long piece of text that Xiriid defends (sounds like sockpuppetry to me to give a false sense of consensus).
  • Is likely using either IPs connected Xiriid and the various Middayexpress/Soupforone socks or is using a VPN to hide themselves. If this is not the case, he will have a Canadian IP from the same region as Middayexpress/Soupforone.
155.254.115.73
  • While IP 155.254.115.73 already has been banned. I suspect it was used by Xiriid/Crowi21/Middayexpress/Soupforone in the past.
  • 155.254.115.73 has edited pages Homo sapiens idaltu, Racism in Africa, Cushitic peoples, and Horn of Africa matching patterns with the suspected above socks Crowi21 and Xiriid.
  • Like Crowi21 wants to push the POV that Somalis get racially discriminated by other Black Africans.[853]
  • Possibly the VPN service used by 155.254.115.73 may overlap with Crowi21 and Xiriid.Wadaad (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Xiriid is using a legitimate ISP. However, the user's UA is the same as previous accounts who used only proxies and who were blocked without tags as they are probably Red X Unrelated to the master, e.g., Arboleh (talk · contribs · count). Based on behavior and this connection, I am blocking Xiriid without tags. Crowi21 hasn't edited in eight months. If they resume editing, a new report may be filed. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20 March 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

  • Haadmahanjuryt6 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • 92.9.145.224 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Haadmahanjuryt6 account created 09 January 2020 [854], two days after sock account Gashaamo's unblock request was denied [855] (07 Jan), and on the same day Gashaamo received an ArbCom block [856] (09 Jan).
  • WP:PRECOCIOUS. Haadmahanjuryt6 is clearly not a new editor per their editing history [857].
  • Identical POV/vote on niche topic, Gashaamo [858], Haadmahanjuryt6 [859].
  • Much of their edits are in articles of interest to sockmaster + confirmed socks, e.g. Haadmahanjuryt6 created Widhwidh District, an article of interest of confirmed sock Thylacoop5 [860] (top editor being Middayexpress [861]).
  • Identical use of IP-editing as means of block-evasion as confirmed socks: In December IP inserts "Hiil Borraan" in obsecure article Buraan [862], followed a few weeks later by Haadmahanjuryt6 making a page move renaming the article "Hiil Borraan" [863]. The IP in question has identical ISP (UK TalkTalk), range and location as IPs included in previous reports [e.g. [864] ([865]. Abuse of IP addresses from this same IP range, same ISP (UK TalkTalk) and same location, to circumvent the block was discussed in detail previously [866] (under heading Abuse of IP addresses to circumvent their block).
  • Although Hythurrbb and Sidhigarraft have not made any edits on the English Wikipedia yet, they've been active on Commons, working in the same manner discussed previously in this report (dormant account uploads to Commons/requests a redirect on Wikipedia, IP finishes the task by inserting content to article to evade detection). Both have edits requesting changes to maps of interest to sockmaster (Hythurrbb: [867], [868]..etc, Sidhigarraft: [869], [870]..etc). These new maps requested on Commons would then be inserted into the English Wikipedia via IP to circumvent the block [871]. The previous example is from a year ago so may be stale, but the same IP range is being used currently to make similar edits [872]. Kzl55 (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • @Bbb23: if possible please leave the report open for behavioural evidence to be considered. Suspected sock was created within days of blocking of confirmed sock (a pattern observed numerous times in sockmaster's behaviour), holds identical POV on niche topics, and is clearly not a new editor. As you know sockmaster is well versed in manipulating IP to evade detection, which is why checkuser was not requested. --Kzl55 (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I've removed one account because it doesn't exist on en.wiki, one account that is way stale, and 2 stale IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red X Unrelated, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

31 March 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

  • Haadmahanjuryt6 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Poljjuutre (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • 92.9.145.224 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 92.9.153.236 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Adding Poljjuutre and additional IP to previously submitted SPI:

  • Haadmahanjuryt6 account created 09 January 2020 [873], two days after sock account Gashaamo's unblock request was denied [874] (07 Jan), and on the same day Gashaamo received an ArbCom block [875] (09 Jan).
  • WP:PRECOCIOUS. Haadmahanjuryt6 is clearly not a new editor per their editing history [876].
  • Identical POV/vote on niche topic: Gashaamo (confirmed/blocked sock) [877], Haadmahanjuryt6 [878].
  • Much of their edits are in articles of interest to sockmaster + confirmed socks, e.g. Haadmahanjuryt6 created Widhwidh District, an article of interest of confirmed sock Thylacoop5 [879] (top editor being Middayexpress [880]).
  • Identical use of IP-editing as means of block-evasion as confirmed socks: In December IP inserts "Hiil Borraan" in obsecure article Buraan [881], followed a few weeks later by Haadmahanjuryt6 making a page move renaming the article "Hiil Borraan" [882]. The IP in question has identical ISP (UK TalkTalk), range and location as IPs included in previous reports [e.g. [883] ([884]. Abuse of IP addresses from this same IP range, same ISP (UK TalkTalk) and same location, to circumvent the block was discussed in detail previously [885] (under heading Abuse of IP addresses to circumvent their block).

With regards to Poljjuutre:

  • WP:PRECOCIOUS. Poljjuutre is clearly not a new editor per their editing history.
  • Interest in the same topics as sock master, i.e. articles related to Somali politics.
  • Identical idiosyncratic pattern to Haadmahanjuryt6: 1st edit following creation of account inserts a sandbox into their user page with a single Somali word [886]. Haadmahanjuryt6 did the same thing [887].
  • Poljjuutre has a very similar time card to Haadmahanjuryt6 [888], [889]. Their latest edits were submitted exactly at 18:02 two days apart [890], [891]. Timeline activity inline with timelines of blocked socks e.g [892], [893].

If possible, please consider behavioural evidence in tandem with any technical evidence. Sockmaster has demonstrated ability and willingness to attempt to evade technical scrutiny, but the behavioural evidence and pattern of editing remains largely the same. Kzl55 (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 already made a finding about Haaddmanjuryt6, and Poljjuutre is also Red X Unrelated. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

26 June 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


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

I came across this WP:DUCK in the course of putting together examples of disruption in the Horn of Africa project.

Behavioural evidence:

  • WP:PRECOCIOUS, clearly not a new editor, this is their first ever edit [894], this is not the first edit of someone new to Wikipedia. The rest of their editing history confirms they are not new [895].
  • General interest in niche articles within the Somali project that have Middayexpress/Soupforone as top editor:
- Puntland State University (6 daily views) [896], Middayexpress is top editor [897].
- Abdullahi Ahmed Irro (18 daily views) [898], Middayexpress is top editor [899].
- List of cities in Somalia by population (41 daily views, so perhaps not so niche) [900], Middayexpress is top editor [901].
  • Of Felinepaw's top 10 edited articles [902], at least 7 have Middayexpress as the no.1 editor (some have multiple confirmed socks in the top editors list): [903], [904], [905], [906], [907], [908], [909].
  • Same tendentious style of editing and restoration of OR flag/coat of arms/map on Sultanate of Hobyo [910] [911], [912] (..etc), this is identical to confirmed sock EELagoon [913], [914], [915]. Both Felinepaw and confirmed sock EELagoon edit-warred over these files.
  • Knowledge of, and editing of Faqash, an obscure redirect page with <1 average daily page views, that is not linked to by any article on the English Wikipedia. Faqash was originally created by confirmed sock Thylacoop5 in 2018. Since creation, it did not receive any activity until it was edited by suspected sock Felinepaw on 25 June 2020 [916], a new editor has no way of learning of this redirect.
  • Edits on Somali sea [917], this is an article created wholly by IP linked to Middayexpress. For more on the nature of IP abuse, please see Middayexpress SPI report dated 10 May 2019 [918]. Knowledge of and editing of "Somali sea" very unlikely for a new user. For more on the nature of IP disruption relating to this article please see User:TomStar81/Horn_of_Africa_disruption#Example_2:_Somali_sea.
  • Identical tendentious style of editing and conduct on talk pages e.g. [919], very similar to Middayexpress and confirmed sock Soupforone e.g. [920], [921].
  • Cross wiki conduct:
Middayexpress has been observed to use other sites to advance claims on Wikipedia, one example relates to their attempt to push their preferred neologism name of a Somali state (Koofur orsi) across multiple sites User:TomStar81/Horn_of_Africa_disruption#Example_1:_Koofur_Orsi. This is relevant due to the fact that Felinepaw is somehow aware of edits made on this very specific Wikivoyage entry, the history page for Koofur Orsi on Wikivoyae shows only 2 editors, the first is a throwaway account of Middayexpress, second is Felinepaw [922]. Again, knowledge of this entry is highly unlikely for a new account. Furthermore, Felinepaw only removed the entry a few days after Middayexpress' disruptive use of Wikivoyage was was highlighted on English Wikipedia [923]. Kzl55 (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Notifying @TomStar81: who is very familiar with this SPI file. Please feel free to add any other findings if I've missed anything. Best regards --Kzl55 (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Blocked and tagged as proven sock. Thank you for constructing such a well put together report, Kzl55. Too bad CU is all stale. Closing. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01 July 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


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

This is a follow up of the SPI closed earlier today. Bears all the hallmarks of a DUCK again, behavioural evidence below. CU not requested in this case as sockmaster has demonstrated both an ability and willingness to evade technical scrutiny.

Behavioural evidence:

  • Account dormant since 2018. Activated within hours of Felinepaw getting blocked [924].
  • Their first ever edit since 2018 restores content added by sock Felinepaw [925].
  • Their first ever edit since 2018 came around 15 minutes before Felinepaw added a post contesting their blocking [926] [927].
  • Looking at their history they have the same area of interest as Middayexpress and their socks, namely the Somali project per their edit history [928].
  • A number of their top edited pages [929] have Middayexpress as a top editor e.g. [930], [931], [932] ... etc.

Identical idiosyncratic behaviour to confirmed socks:

  • Within minutes of creating their account Lad gudu created a blank user page [933], this is identical to confirmed sock Bretpin whose first ever edit created a blank user page [934]
  • Uploading portraits of Somali politicians to Commons [935], this is a recurring theme with various socks of Middayexpress e.g. [936], [937], [938] etc etc. Kzl55 (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

@TheSandDoctor: Just to clarify, CU was not requested for this case as the individual who runs these socks has previously quite confidently repeatedly demanded CU scrutiny despite damning behavioural evidence, indicating that they have means of evading technical checks e.g. [939], [940] (ctrl+F "Checkuser"). Best regards --Kzl55 (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to cross against MustafaO as well, they two share a common interest so it could be one of the other group’s socks. 2600:1011:B00A:2F2A:C89E:48DD:45D6:DB1 (talk) 03:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being accused of being a sockpuppet account for having an interest in Somali articles? I reverted a malicious edit. The flag was removed from the Sultanate of Hobyo without consensus. Anyone who questions this malicious edit is then accused of being a sockpuppet. Your accusations don't amount to proof as I've made edits to Kenyan pages as well. There seems to be a clear and evident bias on Somali Wikipedia and the silencing/banning of editors who don't share the agenda of more prominent editors. I did nothing wrong and if I am wrongfully banned based on suspicion or "idiosyncratic behaviour", I will be appealing it. Lad gudu (Lad gudu)

With regards to your edit, you have restored content that a blocked sock was edit-warring over, you did this as soon as they were sanctioned and thus unable to restore it using that blocked account, and you've done so having not edited any article since 2018. Almost all confirmed socks attempted to edit pages out-with the Somali project to mask their activity and avoid scrutiny, plenty of examples in the archives including most recently sock account Felinepaw editing Arab-related articles. As for Kenya-related articles, Middayexpress certainly had an interest in the project, as an example, they are the no.1 editor of Demographics of Kenya, whilst the 2nd top editor is confirmed sock Soupforone. --Kzl55 (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, why would you assume I am aware of whatever editing war is going on between you and another editor? I read Wikipedia and noticed the missing flag. Second, I restored the edit to the previous long-standing version. You had previously asked for the flag to be deleted and your request was rejected so your action to arbitrarily delete the content without first using the talk page to establish consensus was flat out wrong. I have been an editor since 2018 and never once have I been accused of being MiddayExpress, not even when I edited Somali pages. It was only after I reverted your edit that I came on your radar so you accused me of being MiddayExpress and Felinepaw. You're grasping at straws and using this bogeyman as a scapegoat to get me blocked or banned as a way to silence those with a difference in opinion. MiddayExpress edited many pages, including pages you have edited yourself. How is it fair to accuse me of being MiddayExpress when you should be implicated in any acccusation as well? Again, I reiterate I am neither MiddayExpress nor Felinepaw or any other sockpuppet account. Your so called "identical idiosyncratic behaviour" amounts to having a blank talk page when millions of editors of Wikipedia have blank talk pages. This seems personal on your part and I want no part in it. --Lad_gudu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the behavioural evidence listed above is compelling and in line with previous cases of Middayexrerss sock-puppetry. It is understandable you may disagree. With regards not being accused of being a sock previously, that is not a valid defence as confirmed sock Soupforone has been editing for years before being found out to be a sock. Lastly, personal attacks and attempts to obfuscate the discussion are known traits of confirmed socks, I suggest you focus on points raised. --Kzl55 (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, where is your evidence? A blank talk page? What other "behavioural evidence" is there? I've been edited on Wikipedia without issue until I reverted an edit you made arbitrarily without establishing consensus first. You no longer want to address the actual issue here: your choice to make an edit to long-standing content without establishing consensus the talk page first. The moment you were questioned, you accused Felinepaw of being a sockpuppet when you removed the flag, map, and coat of arms even though you were told there was " no valid reason for deletion. "Original Research" means nothing here and the file is heavily used". I am being accused of being a sockpuppet after reverting an edit and returning the page to its original state before your vandalism of it. You had no valid reason for deleting the content. There seems to be a behavioral pattern where you accuse those who disagree with you of being sockpuppets without providing substainal evidence as an attempt to undermine their disagreement with your editing behavior. This is bordering on harassment. --Lad_gudu (talk)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - We now have something to compare against in the archives. In light of this, I would like to get a checkuser's input & preferably a check on this account. TheSandDoctor Talk 23:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a purely technical standpoint Lad gudu is Red X Unrelated to Felinepaw.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. Mz7 (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, being overly defensive when caught is one of Middayexpress/Soupforone's trademarks, and as it happens here is a not new account thats getting overly defensive, so thats a good place to start.In broad strokes this matches the previous pattern of throw away accounts created to carry on the original's work, there is a pretty large amount of circumstantial evidence that would link the two. If Bbb23 was here he'd likely have a technical trick or two to help with this, but arbcom forced him out, so we are without our best investigator, and that hurts us badly here. I can make one or two technical observations, but those are best made offline, and in either event it looks like this one's wrapped up already, so I'll just let it ride and see what happens. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reminder when checking this case to cross check with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MustafaO to be sure its not with the other group. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, when dealing with these ethnic/nationalist edit-warrior types, things get a lot trickier than your garden-variety sock. It's a whole different beast. Sometimes long-dormant accounts reactivate to restore a sock edit, and sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry isn't always the only explanation. Some users are "lukers" who for whatever reason choose to edit mostly anonymously via IP (or don't edit hardly at all) and only log into their accounts on special occasion. But make no mistake, these lurkers are still active readers of Wikipedia and because they're watching, often understand policies and how things work here to a certain degree. My gut tells me this isn't Middayexpress or a part of the MustafaO sockfarm, and the technical evidence only strengthens that conviction. If additional evidence arises, this can always be reopened. Closing with no action. Sro23 (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

27 November 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


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

In a separate SPI case [941], behavioural evidence regarding GoldenDragonHorn being a new socking account of Middayexpress was discussed. The evidence is compelling and warrants its own SPI report so I have compiled it below. The sockmaster has demonstrated willingness and an ability to try and evade technical scrutiny, as such I am not requesting a checkuser report. Behavioural evidence below:

  • Precocious editing history. GoldenDragonHorn is clearly not a new editor, this is their first ever edit [942]. Subsequent edits made within 15 minutes of registration confirm this [943], [944], as does the rest of their editing history [945].
  • Highly unusual activity for a new account, and knowledge of various discussions taking place throughout English Wikipedia:
- Joining SPI discussions concerning possible socks without prior involvement in the SPI [946].
- Similarly, knowledge of and participation in Arbitration discussion on the subject of disruption caused by Middayexpress (and others) across Horn of Africa projects [947]. Their statement attempts to minimise damage caused by disruption e.g. "..They are literally ‘carpet-bombed’, as TomStar81 pointed out above, just to capture two banned individuals who have been active for decades...", as well as downplay the importance of behavioural evidence in cases where sockmaster has proven an ability to evade technical scrutiny (please see below).
  • Their top 5 edited articles [948], all have Middayexpress (as well as multiple confirmed socks in some cases) as top authorship/editors: [949], [950], [951], [952], [953],
  • Identical interest in "collage" files on Commons: GoldenDragon uploaded a collage file to Commons [954], confirmed sock Soupforone had a similar interest in collages [955]. Another cross-wiki similarity is targeting of files related to Isaaq genocide on Commons, e.g. GoldenDragonHorn [956], images related to this article also disrupted by confirmed sock Soupforone [957].
  • Staunch opposition to the use of behavioural evidence for cases like the ones that plague the project [958], [959]. Very unusual for a new editor with a registration date of 7 October 2020, almost reads as what someone previously blocked through behaviour evidence would say. This is the same stance adopted by confirmed sock Soupforone [960], [961].
  • GoldenDragonHorn's insistence on use of technical checkuser tools only ([962], [963]) is identical to Middayexpress socks e.g. Soupforone demanding only checkuser tools be used in the case [964], [965], [966], [967] and [968] (...etc).
  • Identical preference for confrontational and lengthy walls of text in SPI cases as means of obfuscating the discussion, compare GoldenDragonHorn's comments here [969], to confirmed sock Soupforone's here [970].
  • Using identical talking points to confirmed socks regarding "intimidation" and "targeting of Somali editors". Compare these statements:
- GoldenDragonHorn:
1) "There is clearly a witch-hunt against 'active' Somali editors, who are either blocked, intimidated or discredited by repeatedly tying them to two banned individuals who happen to be from the same background." [971],
2) "... but this is one of the intimidation tactics I have observed before used against Somali editors" [972],
3) "... stating or highlighting this fact is not justification to 'block' a person (again more intimidation)" [973].

Compare the above to confirmed sock Soupforone's attack on Nick-D:

"I am concerned that the Middayexpress user is now being used as a convenient scapegoat to slander new editors and intimidate/discourage them from editing pages related to the Horn of Africa. Moreover, I suspect that the moderator Nick-D (who is a WP:INVOLVED administrator that had at least one previous run-in with Middayexpress) or another party will try again to capitalize on this situation and attempt to block these editors on false "behavioral evidence" grounds, without Checkuser due process" [974].
  • In addition to the "witch-hunt" against "active Somali editors" narrative, Soupforone would also repackage the same talking points around feigning concern for rights of "new editors", e.g. "It now appears that similar WP:BAIT tactics are being used against new editors" [975], needless to say, the "new accounts Soupforone were concerned about (Egezal, Odriejh and Geneticanthro) were later checkuser confirmed [976]. Compare Soupforone's rhetoric to GoldenDragonHorn's: "The issue I currently have is that there are no safeguards to protect new editors with an interest in the region" [977], also "Looking if there were any existing safeguards for new editors..." [978]. Kzl55 (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supplementary off-wiki behavioural evidence:
There appears to be clear off-wiki recruitment on places like Twitter e.g.: "Be smart about it. 1st edit a few dozen unrelated Somali articles about your interests like football, films, etc then move to something more related to Somalia and then start cleaning up. This way they can't ban you on sight. Also later on join the WikiProject Somalia. Tactics", Image link. Link to tweet/Archive.org link.
GoldenDragonHorn has followed the advice above very carefully, from making edits unrelated to the Somali project to joining the WikiProject Somalia. Their first ever Wikipedia edit was to add their name to WikiProject Somalia as per instructions [979], they also made a point to make a couple of edits out-with the project as advised e.g. [980], [981]. Soon after GoldenDragonHorn edited WikiProject Somalia, editor Ragnimo followed as well: [982]. -- Kzl55 (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Notifying @TomStar81: who is very familiar with this SPI file for any further input. Best regards --Kzl55 (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kzl55 So who am I supposed to be Souperone or MiddayExpress? This is just another attempt at trying to take down an editor you consider a threat to your advocacy. I already discredited your problematic style of tying two people together when I connected you to someone else [983]. Also can an admin look through these two flawed cases[984],[985], as well as my sporadic IP contribs that date back to June.

Additional observations, since you're moving the goal-posts:

  • Looking if there were any existing safeguards for new editors, I came across an amazing article on Wikipedia titled: Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet, which breaks down what's going on here point by point; from the fixation on my 'first edit', which was me going legit as an ip to a real account, to the so-called authorship similarities in the most common Somali articles, to the guilty-before-innocent reverts of my edits[986], that were discussed on talk-pages beforehand. It all reeks of Sockphobia
  • SPI filer refused a CU knowing it will clear me of any wrong doing.
  • Opted for behavioral analysis only to be pointed out below that our POVs don't even sync on the most fundamental issue behind my presence on Wikipedia, which is history.
  • Used the Mogadishu collage as evidence, when its actually inspired by the Ankara collage, including the distinctive white lines, since I didn't know how to create a collage effect via the info-box with several images (If I had spend an hour figuring that out you probably would use that as evidence of Precocious editing).
  • Claims a new user couldn't possibly edit so well, when in-fact my IP contribs would show my presence going back to June. I have learned programming frameworks in less time than that.
  • Claims my talking-points are exactly like that of Souprefone yet another innocently accused editor Lad gudu made the exact same observation[987].
  • Seeing that none of the above sticks, the Filer is now casting a wider net of conspiracy by citing off-wiki canvassing, yet my first edits are all Somali related, which directly contradicts the above off-wiki advice. I also directly approached a Somali editor on Wikipedia and asked if they were going to make any changes to an article that got me to sign up. If I'm working off-site why would I do it so openly on someone's talk-page? It makes no sense. -- Can an CU/clerk make a decision on this already? I'm getting completely put off from Wikipedia by this individual. I have zero interest in commenting on this farce beyond this statement, so do your thing. --GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing more to add save that for the sake of putting to bed concerns over socking it would be a good idea to look at User:Ayaltimo, User:Ragnimo and User:WanderingGeeljire to put the issues of the accounts and their collaboration with either farm to bed once and for all, as none of these accounts can possibly be this new to the site and contribute this perfectly to the site without having been on this sight for some time - by which I mean more than 6-8 weeks. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81 Actually check user cleared us we are all unrelated to eachother:[988] , and WanderingGeeljire and GoldenDragonHorn are proven by clerk and check user to be unrelated to eachother[989] and also i have actually shown that i am infact new to editing on wiki [990]: infact i don't contribute perfectly to this site and i make lots of mistakes and learn on the fly.

Also i gave my comment already on the Midday/sock false accusations you and Kz155 love throw at random Somali editors on the same page:[991]

Anyways cheers. Continue the gatekeeping witch hunt as you may. Ragnimo (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Cordless Larry: That is fundamentally the problems with behavioral evidence: more than one person can share the same opinion. Gather enough people in place and you're bound to find those who think enough alike that they can work together in unison for a goal - good or bad - and no one would be the wiser. That's also why technical evidence is used to make the final decision, and why those who suspect a sock must lay out the evidence they have here first instead of simply blocking and tagging. We've falsely accused others in the past, and on a few occasions blocked without a significant appreciate for what happens when participants are locked out, and it is for that reason that we all come here first. Its better to air our suspicions and be informed of the outcome than to simply guess and test. In fairness here, I've never seen a Middayexpress sock edit Gunpowder articles, Python (programming language), Dart (programming language), or Conan O'Brien, which does lend some credibility to the "I'm not him/them" argument being made here. All the same, the easiest way to settle this would be with a look under the hood, for which a checkuser is required and an SPI cases typically needed. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, agreed on behavioural evidence - but my point below was that the comment by GoldenDragonHorn I linked to seems to be quite a different opinion to Middayexpress/Soupforone's POV regarding "Afrocentrism". Cordless Larry (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CordlessLarry and TomStar81, we have previously seen the sockmaster pepper a few edits out with normal Middayexpress interest/POV, as well as perform unusual editing as means of evading scrutiny, and it later emerges they are checkuser confirmed. Examples of this include them trying to hide socking activity by having two socking accounts revert one another or display public disagreement, examples include Troyoleg reverting Odriejh [992] (both were later checkuser confirmed) and Qevoja reverting Geneticanthro (again, both confirmed socks) [993]. Thylacoop5 took this a step further by starting an SPI against socks Vukharttara and Zavaiw [994], [995]. This perhaps would explain the few edits outside of Middayexpress' POV. --Kzl55 (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Im concerned that this user GoldenDragonHorn is going to encourage disruption on the platform, he seems to be coaching others and giving advice while clearly behaving like a disgruntled user who didnt have his way on wikipedia. Lots of allegations were thrown on the SPI case I had opened couple days ago against Ragnimo/Ayaltimo including the fact that there's a conspiracy against certain editors. Many of the editors who remain blocked in this project are incompetent yet GoldenDragonHorn overlooks that and starts pointing fingers of bias. There's only one possible reason for that, the editor is likely part of the problem. What I find interesting between GoldenHorn and the other two editors is their agenda to discredit Arab influence on Somalia by pushing fringe theories on multiple articles and being adamant on ethnicity sections in the lede [996] [997] [998] [999]. Not to mention the copying of each others SPI case rebuttals which prompted GoldenHorn to comment on my SPI case inorder to tell Ayaltimo to cease doing that as it may implicate him, Ayaltimo continued to copy some of his texts even after that. One wonders how did GoldenHorn come across an obscure SPI case that he wasnt even mentioned in? I would also like to point out that Ragnimo doesnt seem to mind the scrutiny as he continued to make identical edits of GoldenDragonHorn even after this SPI case was opened. [1,000] [1,001] Magherbin (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all Magherbin you are in no position to be accusatory of disruption. When you have a long history of edit warring and have been blocked before for vandalizing.[1,002] You have also been blocked for socking and misusing other accounts to push propaganda [1,003]. What appears to me is that your dispute and disagreements with me on the Yusuf talk page[1,004] has made you enter this conversation to push this agenda further. So what you and Kz115 want is to silence opposition/opposing views or what you consider a threat to your own advocacies and hence launch these false accusations. It is ironic you are making personal attacks on other editors when you have been blocked and is a frequent edit warrior and has been caught socking. You also talk about incompetency when you put down text that are not in the sources you add or twist words from sources and has beeen caught while doing so. Everything you are saying is projection.

It's also ironic that you ask other editors like I to hold you in Good Faith[1,005] but have no problem launching these unfounded accusations to shut people down and toss personal attacks at editors. In violation of WP:AOBF. You and Kzl55 view Wikipedia as a lanching pad for you own nationalistic propaganda and distortions and anyone who even opposes this is accused of socking or dispruption. Which time and time again has been proven to be untrue.[1,006][1,007] As both of these cases have shown, we are all unrelated to eachother. (See Check user comment) And i don't know a single one of them.

There is no coaching happening, GoldenDragonHorn is being a Good Faith editor (unlike some of you) and being supportive and inclusive to wikiproject contributions from other editors and also being for its progress and inclusion of neutrality. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaboration WP:TEAMWORK. There is no rule against editors interracting with eachother on wiki in that way. He is a good editor in my book , as are many others. Kzl55 tried to link me to Golden before on the sole basis he sent me a message on my talk page one time[1,008]. But conveniently left out how i actually responded back to him only several weeks after[1,009] and he did so after leaving a comment on the Mogadishu talkpage in response to my section[1,010] and after me not responding back for some time he sent me notif on my talk page.

How come it took me several weeks to respond back and come back to wikipedia again? If i know him or linked to him somehow? Also if someone is off site canvasing, with familiarity to wiki they wouldn't leave messages to peoples talk pages as well to draw in that type of suspicion. It seems pretty idiotic at that. His message to me is nothing short of WP:APPNOTE. And actually proves we r unrelated. Ragnimo (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder that Magherbin was accused of being a MiddayExpress sock by Kzl55 with a similar so-called compelling wall of text as above, only to be caught as an entirely different sock-farm[1,011], so I find his concerns about 'disruption' quite funny. This comment is clearly retaliatory in nature, because I decided to encourage falsely accused editors from giving up on this platform, and I did it out in the open with clear consequences for myself. How is that coaching to 'disrupt'? Since when is civil-discourse disruption? Only thing I might be guilty of is being a little too passionate in my replies, and that's only because of the desolate state of WPSomalia, which can never prosper if all of its proponents are chased away through false SPIs. Also you ask; how did I find the aforementioned SPI? There is a feature on Wikipedia called 'contribs', everybody checks the contribs of other editors' they find interesting, its how you got here as well despite not being pinged. Ragnimo reverting a page to what's actually being said in the source (that is available in PDF form) doesn't equal identical edits. Also, I discuss all of my editorial changes on their respective talk-pages[1,012],[1,013],[1,014] and actively seek debate because I let the sources do the talking for me. Contrast that with your history of accusing editors you're having a content-dispute with of being socks, unilateral changes on articles as well as for years maintained a POV through the use of four accounts, and I have to wonder who has a clear history of disruption here, me or you? (rhetorical btw) --GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenDragon i revert edits that are unsourced [1,015]. I also changed Ayaltimo's edit even[1,016]. Because he put down something that was not in the sources he added. I have done the same on other articles. For me it's important that what's included is supported by the sources and whats sourced isn't removed maliciously. I have contributed to creating a balanced point of view on Ahmed Gureys ethnicity section. Even stuff that doesn't fall inline with my own view point.

I have various articles on my watchlist. The same reverting of a page edit was used to accuse me of being MostafaO or Aqooni.[1,017] What i edited was a longstanding edition to the page and has been there for several years and i only restored it after looking at the contribution history and the talk page to see if there was a valid reason but now he is saying i am you on the same basis. So i am several seperate people at once? I just have to laugh. Ragnimo (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • In lew of the above, I draw attention to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Regarding_Ted_Kennedy#Sockpuppets, which states "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." Accordingly, per WP:MEATPUPPET, "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Sanctions have been applied to editors of longer standing who have not, in the opinion of Wikipedia's administrative bodies, consistently exercised independent judgment." Therefore, even if we can not prove GoldenDragonHorn et al are either Middayexpress or MustafO, if we can clearly and unmistakably demonstrate that their behavior, disruption, and ethnic-center editing is part of the patterns clearly and unmistakably established at at the other SPI cases, we have leave to consider them part of the aforemention sockfarms for purposes of enforcing Wikipolicy and Wikiguidelines. I urge the checkuser corps to keep this in mind when taking up the case. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those banned members and my POV aren't even the same, never backed their edits, never voted in their favor. How could my edit history ever be misconstrued as Meat-puppetry? This is quite a reach. I have also not engaged in any disruptive editing, and left clear responses on talk-pages to spark discussions before making editorial changes. If you don't want my presence on Wikipedia, you can just say that. I might oblige and leave on my accord if the mistrust is this high and with no safeguards in place to protect new editors. --GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for me i actually look for consensus and discourse before i edit instead of edit warring. I have done so numerous times on different talk pages [1,018] [1,019][1,020]. Other editors even enquire me on my talk page.[1,021] and i open to it. But they keep repeating disruption without bringing proof or describing how we made them.

TomStar81 Also what the heck do you mean by an ethnic-center editing? I joined Somalia Wikiproject to further pages related to such. A lot of these articles lack details, structure and need work. If you look at all the links i have shown thus far you can see there is no nationalist editing. Your acussations are baseless. TomStar81 let me remind you what nationalist/ethnic editing isn't WP:NAT Nationalist editing is not promoting a view based on reliable sources that another editor disagrees with, or being in the minority in local consensus. Editing on a single topic is not in violation of policy. Having an interest in ethnic groups, nations or countries is not inherently a conflict. Many editors are proud of the place they live in, which means that they make many constructive and well sourced contributions about an ethnic group, nation or country. Oftentimes editors in poorly covered regions are uniquely placed to improve critical articles. Just because an editor only makes edits to articles about a country, or topics related to certain place, does not mean they are breaking policy.

When your fellow editor @Kzl55 who you are biased to is the most prolific editor on mainly/only Somaliland topics. The whole acussations he is making is against people people who he feels are against his advocacy for it. Why don't you hold him to that mistrust and suspicion.? How do you know he is not meat puppet or sock of the various WP:SOMALILAND members that always sweep in to agree with him? and vote on issues? [1,022] [1,023]

Btw the afromentioned behavioral evidence i have shown in the above responses proves that i am not related to Ayaltimo or GoldenDragonHorn and we are infact seperate people that happen to share interest in furthering Somali wiki articles. It's interesting to me that most of you went silent around this subject and shifted the goal post to a different type of accussations Ragnimo (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why I am being mentioned here? The false SPI investigation launched on me has already been done and it was proven that I am unrelated to both Ragnimo and Goldenhorn. [1,024] I find it ironic Magherbin a user who has a history of abusing multiple accounts and using fringe theories to accuse individuals of socking. [1,025]
MiddayExpress was a very disruptive editor not by just abusing multiple accounts but pushing his Arab theory onto the Somali history and if you look at Goldenhorn. He's literally the polar opposite. He's been removing/changing edits previously made by MiddayExpress. He's been engaging in good faith on talk pages. He's very kind to users, hardly engages in edit warring, and is a very good contributor to Somali Wikiproject. There are barely any good editors on the Somali wikiproject and they are desperately needed because there are literally so many Somali pages that are neglected and need so much development. If Somali pages keep getting developed it'll be good for Wikipedia because more people will learn about the country and promote a good view to the world. I just want to say something quickly for the user GoldenDragonHorn. I'm very proud for all the contributions you did for Wikipedia and I wish you the best in the coming future. I can't wait to see more work you do. Don't let anyone deter you from editing. How many times these investigations have been proven wrong? This one will fly yet again further strengthening your case. Ayaltimo (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry You seem like a reasonable editor can you or GeneralNotability run CheckUser on Ayaltimo with AlaskaLava. Real quick.

This one user joined wikipedia very very recently 29.oct, around the time me and the two other editors in question had disagreements with AlaskaLava on the Mogadishu page content [1,026](see the talk section above it as well). And immediately added himself to the Somalia Wikiprojects [1,027]. And Alaskalava has since gone inactive [1,028]. And its obvious this editor isn't a new user as Robert pointed out in the previous Sockpuppet investigation[1,029]. His first second edit is him having knowledge about sockpuppetry of some other editor. In the above response he is familiar with Middayexpress editing habits.

Most of his early edits and contributions have been only on topics related to such as Hiraab , Geledi and Ajuuran associated with Mogadishu where spent time chasing around WanderingGeeljire. Then other times it's following me around in Barbaria, or Adal, Aw-Barkhadle or other related wiki articles that i am on. He obsessively is thanking every edit i make. He once even tried to copy GoldenDragonHorns words from the sockpuppet case that Alaskalava unsucessfully launched against him and Wanderingeeljire following a dispute in the Mogadishu talk page and got called out for it.[1,030] He watches all our contributions very closely and tries to enter to hyper to allign and agree with us on every turn and sink his POV with my own or with the other two editors involved in the Mogadishu page dispute. He leaves messages to the same editors involved in that dispute , the weirdest fake support comments and banrstar and even left one on my own talk page[1,031] to try and bait me into canvassing I left it without a response and i didn't join it. All while getting himself forcefully involved in my disagreements and disputed with other editors on other pages just to side with me. He tries to sink his editing time/activity with my own. Which is something i have noticed from looking at his contribs these past 2 days, as soon as he sees me editing he edits and when sees me inactive, he is inactive.

I am fairly certain that this is an account Ayaltimo run by AlaskaLava in an attempt to tie us together and make it looks like we are in some sort off site alliance or in cohoots. And try to lend proof to his own sock allegations to get the 3 editors involved in disagreements with him about Mogadishu blocked or banned Ragnimo (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only a very small group of editors have access to the checkuser tool, Ragnimo, and I'm not one of them. See Wikipedia:CheckUser#Users with CheckUser permissions. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see now. I guess i will have to launch my own sockpuppet investigation and request a check user. I just have to figure out how this all works first Ragnimo (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ragnimo Lol, I don't follow around anyone but I was interested in seeing the progress of Geledi Sultanate and saw a few grammatical mistakes wandering Geeljire made so I helped him out but I never touched most of the stuff he edited. What happened in Barbaria was my own. I was lurking and checking the user out Yacoob316 and I saw his latest edits. I came across a sock and reverted his edits. I never helped you out or removed anything you removed. I've already explained myself what I was doing on that page, on Al-kawneyn, and everything else you're accusing me of. Please read again properly and see the evidence before you make your own ideas in your mind. [1,032] I didn't copy GoldenDragonHorn comment. I made it into my own comment but I wasn't aware of check user so I apologized.
I don't follow you around or touch anything you edit. It's simple we both have share similar interests and if you want to know the truth about Alaska Lava. He's either Midday Express since they both push the Arab theory on Somali history or MustafaO who focuses on Gadabursi pages and is active when Mustafa0 socks are not around but if you feel like he's me go ahead and you'll see how wrong you are about me. Ayaltimo (talk) 15:50, 01 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ask yourself Ragnimo if I was really here for that as you suggested wouldn't I back you up against Kzl55? Wouldn't I back you up in other edit wars you've been in? There are so many instances where I could've supported you but I didn't. Hopefully, that answers your question that I'm my own person. Ayaltimo (talk) 14:28, 01 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The evidence does seem to cast doubt on GoldenDragonHorn being a new editor, although I'm not convinced the comment made here is consistent with the POV reflected here and here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: There is certainly overlap in topic areas of interest, but I am not convinced that these are the same people. I also privately talked to a checkuser about GoldenDragonHorn during the MustafaO SPI and was told that they don't match either old Middayexpress socks or MustafaO. I feel fairly confident that there is some kind of off-wiki coordination afoot, but I am not willing to block. If these editors are being disruptive, deal with them as individuals. Closing without action. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09 December 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Both Middayexpress and Magherbin are heavily invested in Horn of African articles and looking at this behavioural pattern it's quite obvious this is Middayexpress sock just based on contributing specific pages. [1,033]

They both have similar editing skills and both heavily use talk pages which proves they are very likely the same sock. Below I will present you the evidence to show you the same behaviour they display and the same articles they heavily contribute to.

  • Magherbin and his confirmed sock named Lokiszm7 heavily contribute Harari related articles which Middayexpress and his confirmed sock named Soupforone was a big fan of. [1,034] Abadir Umar ar-Rida part of the Harari tradition and the two biggest contributors were Middayexpress and Magherbin. [1,035] The two major contributors of Sultanate of Harar were again Middayexpress/Soupforone and Magherbin. Both ranked in the top 3.[1,036] Harla people the ancestors of the Harari people and the two major contributors of that article are Middayexpress and Magherbin. Both ranked in the top 3. [1,037]

Here are other Horn of African articles they both heavily contribute to.

  • The two major contributors of Hargeisa are Middayexpress and Magherbin. Both ranked in the top 4. [1,038] The two major contributors of Imamate of Aussa are Middayexpress and Magherbin. Both ranked in the top 5. [1,039] The two major contributors of Hadiya Sultanate are Middayexpress and Magherin. Both ranked in the top 3. [1,040] The two major contributors to the Ethiopian Empire are Middayexpress sock (Soupforone) and Magherbin. Both ranked in the top 5. [1,041] The two major contributors of Werji people are Middayexpress and Magherbin. Both ranked in the top 3. [1,042] The two biggest contributors of Mahfuz are Middayexpress and Magherbin. Both ranked in the top 3. [1,043] The two major contributors of Afar people are Middayexpress and Magherbin. Both ranked in the top 4. Soupforone comes in number 7. [1,044]
  • I've shown above how they have similar interests and are major contributors to certain Horn of African articles. Magherbin also has an interest in North African articles the same way as Soupforone does who is one of Middayexpress confirmed socks. One example is when both accounts do minor edits (1+) on specific North African articles like Garamantes, Marrakesh, and Saadi Dynasty. [1,045] [1,046] [1,047] Both accounts were on Berber's talk page. [1,048] It was a habit from Soupforone to show diversity in his editing history to evade a ban similar to what Magherbin was doing which I will explain below.
  • Soupforone mentioned, "Maghreb" where he said, "Many if not most pages I edit are actually related to the Maghreb" [1,049] and when he got banned on March 30th, 2018. [1,050] The name "Magherbin" shows up on June 23rd, 2018 and the first edit he did was Tripoli which is in North Africa. [1,051] The same link I just showed Soupforone says "I have edited more Horn of Africa pages of late not because I have of some undeclared connection, but rather because there seems to be a less intense presence on those pages now." [1,052] Magherbin first edits North African articles then completely switched to only focusing on Horn of African articles. [1,053]
  • Both Magherbin and Soupforone (Middayexpress sock) were against the existence of the Adal Kingdom article and were the only two users that actively tried to get rid of the article using different tactics either by merging it with Adal Sultanate or nominating it by deletion despite this kingdom actually existing and being different from Adal Sultanate. [1,054]
  • Both Magherbin and Middayexpress/Soupforone use the same term "Makhzumi" to describe Shewa Sultanate. Middayexpress originally created the redirect for Makhzumi. [1,055] Soupforone a confirmed sock also used the same term [1,056] and here we have Magherbin who uses the same term. [1,057]
  • Both Magherbin and Soupforone (Middayexpress sock) go to a specific moderator's talk page named AmandaNP when they need help. Magherbin [1,058] and Soupforone [1,059]
  • Both Magherbin and Middayaxpress randomly contributed to a random page specifically a musician named French Montana. Middayexpress edit [1,060] and Magherbin edit. [1,061] I think that's his favourite artist.
  • Both users particularly have a similar interest for Council of Ministers (Ethiopia) which is a very poorly developed page and both Middayexpress and Magherbin are ranked 11th and 12th, respectively. [1,062]
  • Both Magherbin and Soupforone (Middayexpress sock) have similar interests for Ilhan Omar page. [1,063] and Soupforone is ranked 7th biggest contributor. [1,064]
  • Magherbin would Middayexpress exhibit the same editing style by making a major edit then quickly followed by a minor edit (+1). [1,065] This was a known habit by Middeyexpress and Soupforone. [1,066] [1,067]
  • Both users like to request different noticeboards like page protection, Reliable sources/Noticeboard, no original research noticeboard, and Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
  • Update Another strong behavioural evidence linking both Magherbin and Middayexpress is both users commonly use the same idiosyncratic use of "Rv" when reverting. Magherbin reverts [1,068] [1,069] [1,070] [1,071] and Middayexpress reverts [1,072] [1,073] [1,074] [1,075]

Lokiszm7 was considered one of Magherbin's confirmed socks. [1,076] while Magherbin only focused on North of African articles to hide that he was a sock puppet. This is exactly what MiddayExpress did.

  • Lokiszm7 and Middayexpress are the top 3 biggest contributors to Harari people's article. [1,077] Magherbin is ranked 7th and Soupforone is ranked 16th.
  • Magherbin is ranked number 1, Middayexpress is ranked number 2, and Lokiszm7 is ranked number 3 for Emirate of Harar. [1,078] Magherbin is ranked number 2, Lokiszm7 is ranked number 3 and Middayexpress is ranked number 4 on Imamate of Aussa. [1,079]
  • Lokiszm7 also uses the same term "Makhzumi" to refer to Shewa Sultanate as exhibited above by Magherbin and Middayexpress. [1,080] Lokiszm7 would also do a major edit then quickly follow a minor edit (+1) as exhibited above by Magherin, Middeyexpress/Soupforone. [1,081]
  • The article is called Dervish Movement. Dervish has two definitions and one of them is an Islamic movement which could mean any movement but the popular one is leading a resistance. According to Middayexpress/Soupforone, it was a state. [1,082] and here we have Lokiszm7 who links "Dervish State" instead of "Dervish movement". [1,083]
  • Created articles related to Somali politicians. [1,084] Middayexpress was also known for that. [1,085] [1,086] and also Soupforone. [1,087]

From the evidence I presented above it's very compelling this is the same user. When Soupforone got banned around late March 2018. Between the 25th of March to Late June. Middayexpress was using different IPs and abusing multiple accounts until the 23rd of June Magherbin shows up and stayed away from Horn of African articles until he took his right moment then he makes new socks and causes disruptive editing to push his agenda which was the very same behavioural pattern shown by Middayexpress that got him banned. Middayexpress is known to create troll accounts as a distraction to protect his main socks. All the evidence presented shows this account is without a shadow of a doubt a very long-running and high-level ban evasion. Ayaltimo (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

zzuuzz I hope you're doing well. I'm just wondering why this SPI case is taking too long? I've pinged you because you've been very helpful before. I would be grateful if you could review this case yourself and see the evidence because it's very compelling even agreed by the other user. Both accounts are the biggest contributors of specific HOA articles, both accounts contribute minor specific pages on NA articles, both accounts exhibit the same behavioural pattern, both accounts have similar idiosyncratic typing and go to the same moderator for help and both accounts even contributed to the same musician. None of this is a coincidence, it's most likely a duck. Ayaltimo (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I would like to point out that parts of this SPI evidence was copied from a previous case against me which cleared me of being that banned user. [1,088] The user likely opened this case due to the fact that I reported them for editwarring [1,089] Magherbin (talk) 09:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The small "parts" I collected were puzzles to fit the bigger picture. The moderators will review every piece of evidence and see how suspicious you are since the connection between you and Middayexpress is virtually undeniable. They didn't clear you but weren't sure if you were Middayexpress when Waggie said " That said, I have not reviewed the behavioral evidence in any detail, so cannot make a judgment call one way or another and I'm not supporting or opposing an unblock, I simply feel that this is worth pointing out for consideration." [1,090] but with all the deep evidence I have gathered they will be sure you are one of Middayexpress socks. I actually said I would launch a sock puppet investigation on you way before the edit war noticeboard. [1,091] Middayexpress had a thing for lying over small things. With that being said let the moderators do their job and go through the evidences. Ayaltimo (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kzl55: I'm content to tel them take each other out, but just for the sake of covering the bases what do you think? TomStar81 (Talk) 10:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TomStar81: My opinion on Magherbin can be found in this report [1,092], it appears parts of it were referenced above. For the record, I believe behavioural evidence linking Magherbin to Middayexpress is very compelling. They seem to have gotten off last time due to only technical evidence being considered despite behavioural diffs cited. With that being said, Ayaltimo is most certainly a sock as well. Sock Thylacoop5 has previously started SPIs against other socks Vukharttara and Zavaiw as an attempt to evade detection [1,093], [1,094], [1,095]. Best regards --Kzl55 (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kzl55 Thank you for agreeing that Magherbin is one of Middayexpress sock puppets but just to respond to your accusation. I had to look through Thylacoop5 and his socks contribution lists and it seems he was mostly interested in Somaliland and Puntland settlements, geographical regions/islands, Somali politicians and was one of the biggest contributors of Incel. [1,096] This user has a completely different interest when compared to me since I am mostly interested in the history aspect. I've shown signs that I am still learning how to use this platform and made multiple editing mistakes while this sock edited articles far better than me. Just connecting us based on SPI investigations is inaccurate because Middayexpress sock accounts and new non-sock accounts also have done the same thing. I just thought I had to clarify myself. Ayaltimo (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

As I was pinged above, I'll add a comment. I don't know if you realise how complicated these things can be. Anyway, the technical data is inconclusive either way, and there are  No sleepers immediately visible. Whereas I've previously ruled some things in or out at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MustafaO, here I'm not doing that since it's a possibility, in a wide sense. Previous CU data is very stale and I don't fully trust what I've found in the archives, but previous results probably carry some weight. I'll ping User:ST47 who dealt with the previous unblock. Otherwise consider this {{checked}} and deferred to  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. Given the block history and the nature of these cases, I'd suggest any admin taking action would have to be more certain than me. I don't have much else to add. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk note: To save future clerks a lot of digging, the gist is that Magherbin is CU-confirmed (and self-admitted) to have engaged in socking (but unlikely to be a Middayexpress sock). They were unblocked after appeal under WP:SO. I assume this is what zzuuzz means by Given the block history.
There's a large overlap in editing interest, but that could be explained by both users residing in the part of the world they write about (i.e. Horn of Africa). That would also explain the similar timecards, and if they're in the same city, it's likely they'd have the same ISPs and use the same IP ranges, which would explain the "technical data is inconclusive" from CU. I agree that the common use of "rv" in edit comments is curious, but that's not enough to block on. As in the 27 November 2020 investigation, if they're being disruptive, they can be blocked for that, but I can't see enough to block as a Middayexpress sock. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12 November 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


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

These sock farms came to my attention when I was accused of being one. The farms were maintaining bias in the horn of africa section in articles which I have improved somewhat now. Observing this new account there's an uptick in this editors interest in the field of Horn of Africa all of a sudden, their editing pattern derail from their usual Arab/middle east section of wiki identical to the Soupforone case. [1,097]. Its similar to characteristics of the sock Soupforone, this sock tried to have an article related to Isaaq (a marginalized group) deleted [1,098]. Apaugasma similarly targets editors who edit Isaaq related pages, their main objective here may be combating what they perceive as Isaaq bias like the other sock. They claim on the enforcement page that the user is "intent on puffing up the Isaaq clan numbers and misrepresenting their proportion in relation to other clans". [1,099]

Usage of soapbox in edit summaries [1,100] [1,101]. The second diff is revealing in terms of connections between these two accounts. The editing continue to revolve around Isaaq numbers and "puffery", Soupforone made a revert edit labeling it "soap", then altering the page to state only "Habar Magādle clan of the Isaaq were involved in the war and removed lines to Arap and other Isaaq clans. [1,102]. In Apaugasma's edit summary they too go out of their way to make this point about other Isaaq clans such as Arap not being involved. [1,103]. I have a hunch this is a long standing dispute between the various socks and their combating of Isaaq bias.

The problem with these socks is not that they're just socking but are highly disruptive, they do not accept reliable sources and find ways to have them removed. When asked by a user about why they're opposing reliable sources, Apaugasma replies they're "Harar-centric", this is a bizarre response to an article that was solely about the Harar region [1,104] but a signature move by these socks. Veto of sources on grounds they were "Afrocentric" was what the socks used previously as indicated by User:Cordless Larry in the archived case. See sock Soupforone usage here [1,105] or Middayexpress themselves [1,106]. Interestingly Apaugasma uses term "parameter" which was picked up previously in the case against Soupforone. [1,107] [1,108]

Writing style here is shared between Soupforone and Apaugasma, they quote texts to policies as well as linking them. Soupforone does this in the SPI case archived. "As per WP:UNINVOLVED, they are therefore not neutral administrators in this case and should not act as such-- "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved." [1,109]. Apaugasma in an AFD discussion, " WP:MERGE notes under Step 5: Perform the merger: The main reason that the merger backlog includes thousands of articles is because the people who support the merger neglect to undertake this final step" [1,110]

Soupforone and Apaugasma have interests in ancient Greek etymology and topic areas. See [1,111] [1,112] [1,113] Apaugasma claims they're not familiar with Horn of Africa topic area but their actions says otherwise. [1,114] Looks like an elaborate TBAN violation. Magherbin (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • I agree with the report. Was myself surprised how this new user is already familiar with other users in such a small time. @Cordless Larry: Can you comment too? NavjotSR (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NavjotSR! You should know that this is a retaliatory filing, posted by Magherbin on the same day a hoax-like article created by them and nominated by me for deletion was closed as delete. With respect to being a 'new user', please note that though I've only been here for only ~one year, at 4500 I have almost double the amount of edits than you (678) and Magherbin (1795) combined (and I use the preview button often! ). It would also help if you'd look a bit further on that xtools page: do the five articles I edited most (all of which I've rewritten from scratch) tally in any way with their main objective here may be combating what they perceive as Isaaq bias?
Instead, how I came to edit Horn of Africa-related articles may be explained by two further articles in my xtools top 10: on 23 August (9 months into my editing career!) I noticed that a user had been adding Ishaaq bin Ahmed as a 'descendant' to a bunch of articles on members of the prophet Muhammad's family, among them to Ja'far al-Sadiq, an article I watch because Ja'far was the purported teacher of Jabir ibn Hayyan (my no. 1 edited article). So I went to the Ishaaq bin Ahmed article and started to clean it up. It took me some time to notice, but eventually I discovered that legendary clan founders like Ishaaq bin Ahmed and their purported descent from the prophet Muhammad's family were being represented as historical all over Somali-related WP articles (I think I noticed on 6 September, when I started to remove the Ishaaq bin Ahmed-related misinformation on a bunch of articles and discovered that something similar was going on for the legendary ancestor of the Darod clan).
I eventually found myself completely rewriting Aqil ibn Abi Talib (the purported Arab ancestor of the great majority of Somali clans), as well as doing a major cleanup of Samaale (the purported ancestor of all northern Somali clans, through Aqil ibn Abi Talib, see here), cleaning up Asharaf (a southern Somali clan claiming descent from Ali ibn Abi Talib rather than from Aqil ibn Abi Talib), and completely rewriting Sharif, our article on the general concept of descendance from the family of the Prophet.
I'm a trained Arabist and Islamicist, specializing in the history of alchemy, which has a significant background in ancient Greek philosophy (whence my knowledge of Greek). So yes, Horn of Africa-related topics have been a bit of a distraction for me, and I'm not very familiar with them, which is not to say that I can't apply my broad background knowledge of Islamic history –or just my general academic skills– to them. I hope my explanation of how I got involved with these articles has been sufficiently clear to take away your suspicions. If not, please feel free to ask me any question, which I'll be happy to answer! Kind regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The evidence here is unconvincing enough that the filing borders on a personal attack. Occasionally having similar positions or topic overlap with a supposed master with over 100k edits is not good evidence of socking, and the other behavioural similarities are reaching at best. no Closing without action. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Middayexpress/Archive&oldid=1055256987"