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.

27 November 2020

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

• GoldenDragonHorn (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.

In a separate SPI case [1], 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 [2]. Subsequent edits made within 15 minutes of registration confirm this [3], [4], as does the rest of their editing history [5].

• 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 [6].

- Similarly, knowledge of and participation in Arbitration discussion on the subject of disruption caused by Middayexpress (and others) across Horn of Africa projects [7]. 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 [8], all have Middayexpress (as well as multiple confirmed socks in some cases) as top authorship/editors: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13],

• Identical interest in "collage" files on Commons: GoldenDragon uploaded a collage file to Commons [14], confirmed sock Soupforone had a similar interest in collages [15]. Another cross-wiki similarity is targeting of files related to Isaaq genocide on Commons, e.g. GoldenDragonHorn [16], images related to this article also disrupted by confirmed sock Soupforone [17].

• Staunch opposition to the use of behavioural evidence for cases like the ones that plague the project [18], [19]. Almost reads as what someone previously blocked through behaviour evidence would say.

• Identical preference for confrontational and lengthy walls of text in SPI cases as means of obfuscating the discussion, compare GoldenDragonHorn's comments here [20], to confirmed sock Soupforone's here [21].

• 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." [22],

2) "... but this is one of the intimidation tactics I have observed before used against Somali editors" [23],

3) "... stating or highlighting this fact is not justification to 'block' a person (again more intimidation)" [24].

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" [25].

• GoldenDragonHorn's insistence on use of technical checkuser tools only ([26], [27]) is identical to Middayexpress socks e.g. Soupforone demanding only checkuser tools be used in the case [28], [29], [30], [31] and [32] (...etc). Kzl55 (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• 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 [33], they also made a point to make a couple of edits out-with the project as advised e.g. [34], [35]. Soon after GoldenDragonHorn edited WikiProject Somalia, editor Ragnimo followed as well: [36]. -- Kzl55 (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

@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 [37]. Also can an admin look through these two flawed cases[38],[39], 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[40], 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[41].
• 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)

• 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)

TomStar81 Actually check user cleared us we are all unrelated to eachother:[42] , and WanderingGeeljire and GoldenDragonHorn are proven by clerk and check user to be unrelated to eachother[43] and also i have actually shown that i am infact new to editing on wiki [44]: 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:[45]

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

• • @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)

• 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)

• 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 [46] (both were later checkuser confirmed) and Qevoja reverting Geneticanthro (again, both confirmed socks) [47]. Thylacoop5 took this a step further by starting an SPI against socks Vukharttara and Zavaiw [48], [49]. This perhaps would explain the few edits outside of Middayexpress' POV. --Kzl55 (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

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 [50] [51] [52] [53]. 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. [54] [55] Magherbin (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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[56], 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[57],[58],[59] 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)

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)

---