Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress

Middayexpress

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress/Archive.

18 February 2018

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• In case it wasn't clear, the abuse is topic ban evasion. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• Possible off-site canvassing by Middayexpress [60] may be relevant to this investigation considering that Soupforone finds support for their positions from disruptive editors and sock masters interested in the project such as:

• Zakariayps (with at least 35+ confirmed socks that we know of [61]), has supported Soupforone’s position across multiple articles such as:

• Somalis: [62], [63], [64] and [65] (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 [66]).
• The same applies to Talk:Somalis: [67].
• Mohamoud Ali Shire: [68]

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 [69], [70], [71]).

• Somajeeste is another editor with a history of disruptive editing [72], [73], who were also contacted on their talk page on three separate occasions by three confirmed socks of Zakariayps [74] (please note the 'we' in the message “… if we don't report him”), [75], [76]. Somajeeste supported Soupforone on the Somali language article as seen in the following edits: [77], [78], [79], [80], [81].

It is worth noting that Somajeeste also previously canvassed Soupforone [82] 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 [83]), this led to the following ANI discussion [84]. And subsequently to this SPI [85], where three administrators found behavioural evidence compelling [86], [87], [88]. This was not the first time Soupforone was canvassed for the deletion of this particular article [89].--Kzl55 (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

---