User talk:Soupforone

This is Soupforone's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1

March 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This block has been applied per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Soupforone (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I request an unblock of my account. Reasons as per WP:GAPB-- (1) I have read the closing rationale on the case and understand it. (2) The block is incorrect, as I have provided statistical data demonstrating that I am not socking or meatpuppeting, including generally different normal edit times, durations, edit summaries, edited pages (over 97% of total edited pages aren't shared), and data sizes [1]. (3) I also provided an ip address associated with the Middayexpress account for the Checkuser clerk to confirm that we are different editors [2], but the case was closed before a clerk had a chance to run the Checkuser tool. (4) Two of the moderators who commented in the case's administrator area, Drmies and Nick-D, have had past issues with the editor Middayexpress [3] [4]. As per WP:INVOLVED and WP:ADMINISTRATORABUSE, they are therefore not neutral administrators in this case. (5) Nick-D both closed the case and blocked me although he has a conflict of interest in it. (6) The closing rationale for the case contains factual errors. Nick-D claims therein that there were no dissenting opinions, when actually the editors AcidSnow [5] and Lorstaking [6] dissented. I therefore ask that I be unblocked so that the case may continue normally, without interference by involved moderators. Should an uninvolved administrator later examine the Checkuser tool and other data and determine otherwise, I will be mature about the outcome and in my appeal I will promise to follow Wikipedia community customs, including a WP:CLEANSTART if required. Soupforone (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As this is a complicated case, and I do not have all the technical information as a neutral, uninvolved admin - I think your best bet here would be to contact the arbitration committee directly. SQL ^{Query me!} 06:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank you, @SQL:. It is good to see that there are fair administrators out there who understand that WP:INVOLVED administrators cannot misuse the moderator tools and privileges that have been given to them without consequences, such as a desysop if necessary. As per your recommendation and WP:ADMINISTRATORABUSE, I will forward the Arbitration Committee the details. I certainly will have ample time to do that now and more. All the best-- Soupforone (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL:, as per your recommendation above, I have forwarded the details to the Arbitration Committee, including the earlier confirmed meatpuppeting in the RFC-user case. Thanks again for the advice. All the best-- Soupforone (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL:, I received an email back from the Arbitration Committee. The details that I forwarded on the case are apparently on a wait list, after which point they will be reviewed. I will let you know when they get through. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of any reviewing ArbCom members or admins, I have since blocked another sockpuppet of this person: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress refers. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of the ArbCom members and administrators, Checkuser never proved that Middayexpress was my sock because of course Nick-D blocked my account before a Checkuser clerk had the opportunity to run the tool. And when a Checkuser clerk did finally have a chance to run the tool, they unsurprisingly found that the other account accused above and myself were unrelated. The latest block is just another example of a rogue moderator abusing the administrator tools that were provisionally granted to him in violation of WP:ADMINISTRATORABUSE. Although I advised against it in my email to the Arbitration Committee, I therefore now think that dysoping this individual may be the appropriate course of action since they clearly have no regard for that administrator policy. Soupforone (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Middayexpress account hasn't been used since 25 May 2015, it is not possible to run a checkuser on it. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed that both the Troyoleg editor and myself are Middayexpress socks, yet the Checkuser tool found that we are unrelated. I will be sure to point this out as well in my next email to the Arbitration Committee. Soupforone (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser is not the be-all and end-all, though (see WP:PIXIEDUST). The accounts were blocked on the behavioural evidence. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. The accounts were blocked by a WP:INVOLVED moderator who had a personal grudge against Middayexpress [7]. Soupforone (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23:, could you please also run the Checkuser tool on the Geneticanthro account? Another bogus socking claim was apparently made, and I would like my name cleared from that one as well. Soupforone (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 and Doug Weller, could you please run the Checkuser tool on the Kzl55 and Koodbuur accounts? I'm convinced that these are socks of one another. I think this is the actual reason why Kzl55 is so frightened of/worried about the Checkuser tool. These accounts began editing within a few days of each other and apparently in relation to the same content dispute [8] [9]. The Editor Interaction Analyser also indicates that they have frequently edited the same range of pages, sharing identical views on virtually all issues and reverting in step [10]. AcidSnow, could you please open the long overdue sockpuppet investigation case against Kzl55? Soupforone (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 and Doug Weller, as expected, the Kzl55 account has requested that the Checkuser tool should not be used to disprove that the Geneticanthro account is operated by me. One would think that someone supposedly concerned with socking would want Checkuser to find any sleeper accounts, but apparently not this editor. He is now claiming that two other unrelated accounts, Egezal and Odriejh, are my socks on the weak grounds that they both had the temerity to edit pages on the Horn of Africa. Kzl55 also claims that these accounts have edited pages pertaining to Ethiopia (a big no-no apparently), when in fact only the Egezal account appears to have done that. Furthermore, he claims that they all share the same time card, but actually the respective time cards show irregular editing times and days and the user compare tool indicates that the normal edit times also differ for all three accounts [11]. He also apparently overlooked the fact that Odriejh and I edited at the exact same moment yesterday, both at 13:26 [12] [13]. How exactly can I edit at two places at the exact same time when my ip is blocked? Moreover, he is claiming that Troyoleg was "confirmed" as my sock, when your Checkuser investigation actually found that we are unrelated. 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 [14]) 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. Meatpuppeting tactics targeting Middayexpress have already been confirmed in an RFC-user case [15] [16]. It now appears that similar WP:BAIT tactics are being used against new editors, with single purpose accounts like the GeelJire account (who edits the same range of pages as Kzl55 [17]) blanking material that Middayexpress originally added (such as the Nuruddin Farah image [18]) in order to bait new editors into reverting them [19] [20] [21]. Kzl55 or another account then swoops in and preposterously claims that these editors are all socks of each other and Middayexpress, all while conveniently never mentioning the usually like-minded account that removed the material to begin with. I therefore ask that you please intervene and run the Checkuser tool on all of these accounts. Soupforone (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, thank you for running the Checkuser tool and confirming that those accounts, like Troyoleg before them [22], are unrelated to me. Can you please now also run Checkuser on the Kzl55 account, as he is almost certainly a sock of the Koodbuur and GeelJire accounts (whose edits he just reverted to [23] [24] [25])? This editor was clearly not a new user when he first registered his account, as evidenced by this policy link heavy post which he wrote just a few days after joining the website [26]. No truly new editor at that stage has any idea what the website policies are, so it is likely that the Kzl55 account is a sock of an already banned user. Almost certainly a sock of Muktar allebey since the latter banned user and his Hadraa sock edited the same range of pages with an identical pov as the Kzl55 account, including edit warring over a territorial map [27] [28]. This also happened to be among the Kzl55 account's very first edits. If you read the Middayexpress case, much of Kzl55's language and rationale there appears to have been borrowed directly from Middayexpress and AcidSnow in their cases against Muktar allebey and his Hadraa sock (ex. references to "obscure" pages/articles, "disruption", and "compelling" evidence) -- almost as though Kzl55 was already very familiar with the Muktar allebey case and was thumbing his nose at the two editors directly responsible for Muktar alleby's/his ban. This would also explain why Kzl55 appears peculiarly bitter in virtually every exchange that he has had with AcidSnow and with users he believes are the Middayexpress boogeyman. That is, it is partly a vendetta on Kzl55's part and partly a pre-emptive attempt to ensure that no sockpuppet investigation is launched again against him. Furthermore, I strongly suspect that the Kzl55 user is behind the Soùpforne ad hoc account that was registered to troll me, and he likely also operates other sleepers. Can you please run the Checkuser tool on all of these accounts as well? Soupforone (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have only seen this now. My only concern with this is investigation is potential backlash. I suggest being careful in regards to your statements to avoid having your talk page privileges revoked. If you could gather you reasons for the investigation that would be great. In addition, it would seem that none of these sock puppet accounts have any relations with you or Middayexpress. This is indeed quite concerning. AcidSnow (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true that "none of these sock puppet accounts have any relations with you or Middayexpress", AcidSnow. If you read the investigations, you will see that the behavioural evidence is clear. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AcidSnow, the Checkuser tool has indeed confirmed that these socks are unrelated to me and Middayexpress [29]. As to where to begin in the sockpuppet investigation case against Kzl55/Koodbuur/GeelJire/Muktar allebey, here is a good start. I recommend that you ask for the Checkuser tool, as that will confirm existing relations and also help identify any other accounts. Soupforone (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]