Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MustafaO

MustafaO

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

Populated account categories: confirmed

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

24 November 2020

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Aside from the obvious usage of "imo" in both their names, these users are assisting each other edit war [1] [2] on Yusuf bin Ahmad al-Kawneyn. The sock of MustafaO, Aqooni had vigorously sought a one sided POV that both Ragnimo/Ayaltimo support now [3]. On the Zeila article Ragnimo restored a MustafO edit thats essentially original research [4] [5].

Ayaltimo's first ever edit includes socking in the edit summary, how would the user know about socking so early in their editing on wikipedia? [6]

Both Ragnimo and Ayaltimo exhibit the same Dir (clan) clan point of view held by Aqooni sock of MustafaO, they believe all people and towns were only Dir and oppose multiple editors who even question this despite having clear sources indicated otherwise. [7] [8] [9].

MustafaO/Aqooni were the root cause of pushing the Dir claims using wp:synth. [10]. When I asked MustafaO for verifiable sources he simply ignored it however Ragnimo responds a year later. [11]

These editors seem to target my edits specifically, similar to what Aqooni/MustafaO did, both Ragnimo/Ayaltimo removed my edits on the same day in two different articles and joined discussion in both talk pages rapidly. [12] [13] Looking at the MustafaO sock that was just blocked few days ago, MerseySide reverted my edit [14]

These editors are disruptive as they're removing content on multiple pages [15] [16] Magherbin (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

This seems to be a common pattern to launch an investigation on Somali editors who dare voice their opinions and surely if you check our timecards we've edited at the same time before. Just because we have "imo" in our names doesn't indicate anything. Ragnimo and Timo are two different Somali words just to end the confusion. This is another way for him/her to silence editors that don't agree with his agenda by launching an investigation on two individuals in the talk-pages, with the lack of sufficient evidence is a strong sign that he/she rather silence the consensus than engage in good-faith discussion.

If anyone is causing disruptive editing it's @Magherbin who repeatedly removed a neutral POV section that accepted his source but couldn't accept the references that criticize his source and decided to revert more than four times which goes against the Wiki guidelines as you can see: [17] As for the Afar page I've asked him a few times and even pinged him in the talk page to discuss but he wasn't haven't it and engaged in edit warring while he was already clashing with @Ragnimo. He has yet to reply on the Afar talk page: [18] Final one to defend myself for Barbaria edits. Here is another reason why the user is being very dishonest and trying to silence the consensus. What I removed on that page did not relate to Ragnimo's edits because Ragnimo was removing the Monumentum Adulitanum theory as you can see: [19], while I was simply removing vandalism from a suspected sock puppet from Hamza678yu [20] who never mentioned the Monumentum Adulitanum theory. I also have a small history with that user who I believe, is linked with Lampard1234 (banned) and TBftf (a new account after Lampard got banned). This one is a new account but his previous accounts had a relationship with this user. See here: [21].

Relating to my first edit. I came across reading the Harari page and saw some ridiculous claims and quickly signed up. I learned about the wiki guidelines first [22] before I could remove anything. I then started looking for the editor who added these claims so I can engage in a discussion with him/her on the talk page but I realized the user was banned and if you click the user's page it suggests he/she was abusing multiple accounts as you can see: [23]

However, I find it amusing that @Magherbin would start an investigation of sock puppetting when he/she shows clear signs of being one of ‎@Lokiszm7 sock puppets since they both pretty much edit the same pages. One time I removed one of Lokiszm7 edits on the Harari page: [24] and Magherbin decides to reinstall his edits back. [25]

Lokiszm7 was one of the big contributors of Harari [26] and when he was banned Magherbin showed up and continued expanding the page [27] The same thing in the Arsi Oromo page [28] and the Imamate of Aussa [29]. They're always on the same pages and here are more examples: [30], [31] and for Harar here is Lokis doing many contributions: [32] then here is Magherbin doing the same big contribution: [33].

Both Lokiszm7 and Magherbin represent as one of the biggest contributors of Harari-related pages and heavily contribute to the same exact pages. It's only after when Lokiszm7 was banned that's when Magherbin showed up. Whenever somebody removes Lokiszm7 edits Magherbin always reverts them back. It's all very suspicious.

I would like an investigation to be done on those two users as they may be the same person since the evidences are very compelling. Ayaltimo (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

First and foremost Ragnimo/Raganimo is a common Somali phrase meaning manlyness(Google it). Has nothing to do with the usernick Ayaltimo. Imo is not even a word or anything. Pathetic attempt at forcing a connection.

And How is it onesided POV? I explained that i created a balanced POV in the Talk page.[34] What appeared to me is that Magherbin sought to include the Arabian origin and make it seem like it's disputed when it ain't. You also used a source leaving out a chunk of the context and additional info around it. It's clearly a myth as explained by the authors. There is an oral origin story and that oral origin story is regarded as a myth. Thats how it follows. He refrences a book which he clearly didn't even read but nitpicked and he deliberately misintreprets to try and fit his angle. and he is has a long history of disrupting edits on Aw Barkhadle and edit warring with other editors around [35].

As for my Zeila edits, i have been a long time reader of Zeila and Mogadishu related pages and consequently signed up upon seeing disruptive edits and started editing and including additional sources forthem and info to progress them. These are two prominent cities and as such need to have correct sourced info on them. I reverted an edit after reading the talk pages and edit histories that he removed them on the basis that he think its Morrocan berbers and the source was from Ibn Battuta. Completely unrelated to Aqooni/Mostafa most of our edits don't even coincide and i have not edited any Dir related pages but felt the need to clarify that Dir are the taditional inhabitants of the city of Zeila like most of the common sources say whch he tried to remove in spite of that and It's an old edit put in place and has stayed on that page for a long time.

Magherbin has been making disruptive edits and made baseless claims. Like Somalis being Morrocan berbers or they were there before Somalis.[36]. Now because he is contested on it instead of defending his edits and responding back to us in the talk pages he launches false sockpuppet investigation on that simple basis in an attempt to shut editors down. He also likes to sends edit warnings to peoples talk pages to get them to stop restoring edits he takes out without explaining. He did the same to me on the Zeila talk page and took out edit that was sourced without even explaining it on the talk page how they were original research.[37]. As you can see i was also the only one who put forward a compromize to turn away from edit warring. And you can even see from the Talk page discussion he is editing under the intent that he believes Dark Skinned Moroccan people were living in Zeila and Somali coast throughout. Something no source or evidence ,scholarship or even anything supports or states , it's completely baseless. Which i have explained to him over & over and then again on a different talk page with Encyclopedic sources [38] to clear out any confusion. Ayaltimo likewise explained the same on the Yusuf talk page with another source. Yet it's ironic how he talks about Original research. He took out a source he didn't even investigate and mentions Ibn Battuta even though the source refrenced is not from him but from Futah Al-Habasha and you can see me point it out on the Zeila talk page.

His edits seem to have a specific ethnonationalist agenda behind it as pointed out by previous editors and these disruptive edits usually always associated with edits surrounding Adal, Zeila, Harrar and Somali figures related to such. Which Ayaltimo has shown above. You don't try to impose this disruptive editing or injection of Moroccan berber/Arab editing on Southern Somali sultanates or Islamic figures, which you appear to show little to no interest in. He also doesn't add this to the afromentioned Harrar/Harrari/Harla, Afar, oromo or related pages he edits. But includes weak sources/non-peer reviewed or add sources that don't mention what he writes down on those pages. He also shows no interest/engangement to the explanations or reliable sources given by other editors on the talk pages. Cheif sign that he is being deliberately disruptive. Also one of his confirmed alts are named BetaAmhara , confirms his Amhara/Ethiopian relation borrowed from the name Bete Amhara and that shows he has a specific ethiopian nationalist POV/motives which is most likely his reason behind these disruptive edits on Somali related pages. His Ethiopian based edits shared with his other alt Lokiszm7:[39] also shows it doing the same.

I agree with Ayaltimo it's Magherbin who instead need to be investigated for the possibility of being a disruptive sock. Ragnimo (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I think Somali editors part of the WikiProject Somalia need to contact one of the Noticeboards, because this is clearly 'racial-profiling' on steriods. There is not a single active Somali editor that hasn't been accused of being a Sock-puppet. We shouldn't allow this to continue any further. Also, @Ayaltimo, I know you don't mean any harm but your 'comment' is quite similar to my comment in my own false Sock-puppet investigation[40]. I point this out because one of their silencing tactics is behavior analysis as a justification for a ban, hence you shouldn't directly take my words as your own. If Magherbin is really Lokiszm7 start a new investigation. --GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

BTW, don't let these false investigations discourage you guys from being bold and edit any article you feel needs your attention. That is your right. --GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@GoldenDragonHorn your comment related to me because I was going through the same thing as you and truthfully speaking it seems to be a common thing to accuse Somali editors who follow a general view of being behind a sock. I didn't copy it but changed it into my own comment but I apologize if you felt wronged by it. I will launch an investigation on Magherbin and build a case for his sock puppetting habits. Regards Ayaltimo (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

No, no. Not offended at all. I agree with you 100%. Its just that 'behavior analysis' is frequently used to block a person, so I had to point it out. --GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I will keep that noted, thanks for letting me know. I knew about the analysis behaviour but not to that extent which is why I changed it into my own comment but I guess you can't do that and to reply to your previous comment I am not discouraged at all. The ridiculous investigation he launched only motivated me to keep working on articles that need further attention. Ayaltimo (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I had a look at the thread linking back to Lokiszm7's blocked account by an admin, and Magherbin was indeed confirmed to be part of Lokiszm7's sock-puppet farm, along with Kikolio and Betamhara[41], all whom were confirmed to each-other and blocked. It seems the admin blocked him for six months and he was then given amnesty[42], though why a repeat-offender like Lokiszm7 with 4 accounts has been allowed to return under the confirmed sock Magherbin is very strange, considering there are entire threads about repeat-offending Somali editors, who promised to change, but were denied amnesty or blocked on sight. In any case, you guys should feel vindicated. Most of these investigations are started by actual sock-masters, and because they're doing it, in their minds, everyone else must be doing it too. --GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Ragnimo, Ayaltimo, GoldenDragonHorn, and WonderingGeljire: What you need to understand is that its nothing personal, this is strictly business: we have had a lot of disruptive editing from two separate long term, highly prolific sock farms on sight whose goal was to advance a very once sided version of the history of ethnicity and so forth of the Horn of Africa region. Because the community has no regard for the disruption and therefore refuses to give us adequate tools to address this in a regional sense, we are left with the difficult task of attempting to discern whose accounts may be link to the farm based on behavioral and technical evidence. As a result, this tactic amount to carpet bombing and tends to catch a lot of unrelated accounts - some of them repeated, as AcidSnow (talk · contribs) can attest to. In each of your cases, the oncoming edits, the tempo, the tone, and the fact that each of you appear to know each other suggests to those familiar with the cases that you are acting in unison and may be one and the same person, which is why you keep ending up here. The best advice I can offer you to shake this off is to divest some editing into other Wikipedia areas and play friendly, as those two tactics general serve to disarm folks like us who through a rough road have become at times overly paranoid about editors and their intentions. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Agreed. It is also worth noting that GoldenDragonHorn joined the discussion as soon as Ragnimo and Ayaltimo were reported, and without prior involvement in this SPI. This is not helping the case of them not colluding and/or socking with the others. There is also their activity on the original research noticeboard supporting Raganimo's POV [43]. This, coupled with their familiarity with Wikipedia and the project's history is odd for an account registered on 7 October 2020. --Kzl55 (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• @TomStar81: I don't understand what you're getting at. This is ethnic profiling and it's wrong. I hope you understand there are millions of Somalis out there who will sign up to fix the pages that need the most attention. Currently, all the Somali pages are poorly edited and need a lot of work to do. The so-called sock farms you're pointing out are two specific users which I had to look through and it seems MustafaO socks were only interested in Dir-related pages and currently he's being caught who has been editing at the same time range as others. Middayexpress never supported the general view of Somali history and always tried to relate Arabic ties with Somali history as an example [44] claiming Mogadishu Sultanate was founded by Arab immigrants and these users have been removing/changing what Middayexpress older edits and he was also a big contributor to North African related pages. I hope this sets apart what you're trying to get at but I understand your frustration and will try to implement my editing skills to other areas in Wikipedia instead of specifically focusing on one area. Ayaltimo (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@TomStar81, thank you for confirming in writing what I already suspected. 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. The fact that you used AcidSnow as an example of someone who was several times in the past wrongfully accused of being a sock is highly relevant to my point seeing as he seems to have completely left Wikipedia as an editor, despite having been a valuable contributor to the WikiProject Somalia. I also find it patronizing that Somali editors interested in upgrading Somali articles to GA and Featured level status should instead start editing articles about Snow White or Kathmandu to justify their right to exist on Wikipedia, which is ridiculous. The criteria used to tie individuals together in many of these cases is also highly suspect, example; above we have someone starting an investigation based on the words "imo" to connect Ragnimo with Ayaltimo, which is as absurd as tying Dostoevsky to Kavinsky, because both have 'sky' in their names. Future cases will be scrutinized carefully. I'm making it my personal mission and I will keep encouraging Somali editors to continue being bold and exercise their right to edit any article.

As for @Kzl55's assertion, I'm a programmer, Wikipedia's user-interface is ridiculously simple, no need to feel surprised that someone registered on the 7th of October (but a lurker for much longer, since Wiki is everyone's first point of reference when looking something up) should be so familiar with the platform, its not rocket-science. I also know what the feature 'contribs' stands for, so when I see an edit-war on an article that's on my watch-list like the Ajuran Empire, of-course I will look into the contribs of both editors to get a better understanding, which is how I landed on the noticeboard. If I was in-fact colluding with an editor on the inclusion of a specific map on that article I would have simply reverted you, but I didn't. If however, you really feel that I am a sock, then be my guest and set up another false investigation. It will only strengthen the case I'm currently building. --GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• In addition to points raised above, it is also worth noting that editor GoldenDragonHorn's 3rd ever edit, done within ~10 minutes of registration, was on the talk page of editor Ragnimo [45]. --Kzl55 (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The spark that made me register on the 7th of October (as you earlier pointed out) was the desolate state of the Mogadishu article filled with Fringe Theories. Ragnimo in the article's talk-page indicated he was going to make significant changes, but there was an absence in his contributions, hence I contacted him first before I made my own extensive changes, which I did when there was no reply. Highly transparent, and nothing that violated Wikipedia policy, but this is one of the intimidation tactics I have observed before used against Somali editors. Create the impression that an editor has done something wrong, when they haven't. Not working. GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Seems my advice fell on deaf years made hard by racist ideology. If thats what you believe then far be it for me to question your beliefs, by all means accuse and defame others. Just know that past a certain point editors will make a stand for fair treatment and when that happens you'll likely be blocked for being a bad influence, regardless of you contributions. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Asking for Somali editors to be treated fairly and without a knee-jerk 'suspect' tag attached to them based on their background is not a 'racist ideology'. We should be accorded the same good-faith that every nationality or ethnicity is given on Wikipedia. Stating or highlighting this fact is not justification to 'block' a person (again more intimidation). Its interesting though that you have added me to your list about Horn of Africa disruption solely on the basis that I have 'strong opinions' and therefore might be 'another sock-farm', which again just proves my point. Thank you. -- GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no place for straw man arguments here, there are plenty of Somali editors who have been editing without issue, including myself. The community is against a handful of persistent vandals, whose long history of disruption is recorded across multiple SPI reports. Take your racist views elsewhere. --Kzl55 (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Other editors have pointed out the same systematic bias, and even admins have abstained from outright blocking a person in the past just because they shared interests. Highlighting this is not a 'racist view'. --GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• The central theme of GoldenDragonHorn's rhetoric, specific phrases (i.e. "intimidation) and line of attack (against TomStar81, the use of behavioural evidence, and insinuation of specific editors being "targeted") is identical to that of confirmed sock Soupforone. Please read the following three sentences from 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.", 2) "... but this is one of the intimidation tactics I have observed before used against Somali editors", 3) "... stating or highlighting this fact is not justification to 'block' a person (again more intimidation)". Now compare that with Soupforone/Middayexpress 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" [46]. The rhetoric, phrasing, and writing style is identical, a clear WP:DUCK. --Kzl55 (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure if go through SPI cases on different countries, ethnicities or cultures, I could find editors using the words 'intimidated' or 'targeted'. Its plain English, and this is the English language Wikipedia, but by your logic all those individuals are ducks of me. Ridiculous, but I see this is just a case of trying to 'rail-road' a quick block and silence someone who has pointed out something's rotten in Denmark. I'm going to look through all these SPI cases because if you can tie me to a banned editor on such flimsy comparisons, I'm 100% sure others were rail-roaded in a similar fashion despite being innocent. --GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

If you look at even in that thread Golden linked he is actively falsely accussing Somali editors [47] The biggest/consistent thing Kzl55 does is to attach people to MiddayExpress or so called socks related to that user. Which is problematic because MiddayExpress is the most prolific of Somali/Horn of African editors and has contributed to most of these pages and based on that users contrubution history has been here since wikis early days. That user is written all over these pages. That user is top editor on most of the pages. Basically KKzl55 evidence amounts to most of the time Middayexpress edited a page in 2015 and so did X. Therefore they are Midday, they share same interest. Even though the same logic can be applied to him.

GoldenDragonHorn is 100% right this is ethnic profiling. They are targetting Somali editors bydefault for having interest in and having contributions to Somali related articles and if they do they are automatically warranted to be suspected of being a sock of another previously banned Somali editor. Thats how the logic behind these allegations follow and consequently either blocked or scared away from editing. You can clearly see it in a recent case here where again Kzl55 accusses another editor Lad gudu of the same [48]

It was dismissed by a patrolling Editor Sro23 and what that editor said was true in his conclusion and this is the case for many Somali editors who join in late they have been long time lurkers or readers.

Therefore we should certaintly intrepret it this way because these allegations are based on the most flimsy grounds. Like Golden described it's done in the most Knee Jerk like reaction against Somali editors. Because they are linked to several cases that are proven false [49]and that haven't made them even deter or the least bit cautious in throwing these allegations around at people.

Kzl55 accused Magherbin of being Middayexpress as well just in the thread Golden linked [50] and his evidence amounts to the fact they edited the same pages one time (No suprise) and the usage of Makhzumi to describe Sultanate of Showa even though it's a common name for it in the literature around it. It's not a unique opinion or a fringe interest exclusive to a few. If i call [Geledi sultunate[|Geledi]] Gobroon Dynasty and so does another editor one time. Is that evidence that make me and him one in the same? They are not even related to eachother and Magherbin i suspect isn't even a Somali editor and clearly lacks knowledge on Somali related content which youu can see from our talk page discussions and is Ethiopian/Amhara like it's shown above but Kzl55 nonetheless tried to link this editor to Middayexpress just like other editors are being frequently linked to that user repeatedly and accused of being that banned editor on the most filmsy behavioral grounds.

Also what's more suspicious in my opinion is how TomStar81 shows up[51] at almost every turn trying to legitimize it when these acussations arise and they are mostly agreeing with eachother. Almost as if they are colluding, and abusing/using their experience/position to build false cases against people and tie them to Middayexpress. Also from reading previous investigations it seem as if both of these editors have a personal problem with that one editor and have no problem nor are being catious about roping unrelated editors into that.

That's why i think GoldenDragonHorn first suggestion about it needing to be brought up to a noticeboard and get an uninvolved admins on board in this should be the best course of action. For there can be no fair unbiased inclusive progress in Somali/Horn Of Arican wiki projects if this is what's going to be the constant theme and it's done by these same few editors that are acting as sole gatekeepers. Ragnimo (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• Digging into the archives yields evidence that GoldenDragonHorn may be a Middayexpress sock; per this thread User shows attempts to create SPIs on editors who call BS and/or revert. User also has very keen grasp of SPI page complexity (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reporter104/Archive) which was a trait shared by Middayexpress. Collectively, this could be enough to justify a block since the behavior evidence is strong and the technical evidence leans this way (if I have the right SPI case). TomStar81 (Talk) 23:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

---