Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 298: Line 298:
:::[[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. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 00:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
:::[[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. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 00:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
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. {{ping|Drmies|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. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 22:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
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. {{ping|Drmies|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. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 22:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
:{{bwt}} As there have been no dissenting comments from my admin colleagues or other editors, I have applied these blocks. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 23:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
:{{bwt}} 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 other of the accounts - preferably Middayexpress to avoid confusion relating to the ban. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 23:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->

Revision as of 23:22, 30 March 2018

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

18 February 2018

– Clerk assistance is requested in the case below.

Suspected sockpuppets


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]
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]).

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]

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]

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 other of the accounts - preferably Middayexpress to avoid confusion relating to the ban. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Middayexpress&oldid=833337172"