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]

As far as I understand it, a checkuser cannot conclusively prove innocence. Someone using two different computers on different internet connections, for example wouldn't be detectable via a checkuser. That's why behavioural evidence has to be taken into account. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That behavioral evidence is bogus [30]. On the other hand, the fact that Bbb23 blocked several of those accounts based on Checkuser (which detects geographical location, irrespective of internet connection) demonstrates the tool's validity. Soupforone (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Banned user instructing others. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you can't prevent me from legitimately trying to defend myself. Soupforone (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ninafundisha/Ms. Sarah Jay Welch/ApostleVonColorado

Bbb23, thank you for confirming that the Cherue user is related to Troyoleg, who is unrelated to me [31]. Along with Lorstaking, please now also look into the editor Ninafundisha. This is an obvious sockpuppet of the banned user Ms. Sarah Jay Welch/ApostleVonColorado, who is an old meatpuppet colleague of Kzl55/Muktar Alleby and Cordless Larry. They have a similar time card [32] [33], writing style & edit summaries, and POV. This POV basically tries to dissociate Semitic-speaking populations from other Afroasiatic-speaking populations and to associate Semitic speakers instead with Indo-European-speaking populations. This is the actual reason behind Ninafundisha/Ms. Sarah Jay Welch/ApostleVonColorado's interest in the Savanna Pastoral Neolithic (which is among the earliest Cushitic-speaking cultures south of Egypt), and why she removed the sourced line "scientists have previously dated the arrival of such Western Eurasian-related ancestry in eastern Africa, which is now pervasive in the region, to around this period on average (ca. 3,000 BP)" from a related archaeological site page [34]. This is also why literally every single image that Kzl55/Muktar Alleby/Koodbuur/GeelJire has removed from the Somalis page has been of light-skinned individuals, whereas every single image that he has added has been of dark-skinned individuals. How long do these editors think they can squiggle along before the inevitable sockpuppet/meatpuppet investigation against them and their moderator enablers is launched? We are looking at an agenda here, and a rather fatuous, unscientific, unsustainable and futile one at that. Soupforone (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ninafundisha/Ms. Sarah Jay Welch/ApostleVonColorado will also be disappointed to learn that it is only a matter of time before Savanna Pastoral Neolithic fossils without significant or any hunter-gatherer admixture are identified. This is because the hunter-gather ancestral component that was observed in the Luxmanda specimen has only been found in eastern Africa, so the SPN culture bearers had to have acquired that component within the region. And since that interbreeding between the SPN makers and hunter-gatherers apparently took place in eastern Africa, this means that the SPN people originally arrived in the region carrying only the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Levant ancestral component. Thus, there were ancient Cushitic-speaking people of essentially the same ancestral origins as the Pre-Pottery Neolithic culture bearers who lived in eastern Africa. What a travesty! Soupforone (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Ninafundisha (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL indeed. As the old saying goes, you can fool some people some time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. Soupforone (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kzl55/Muktar Alleby

Bbb23, the Muktar alleby sock Kzl55/Koodbuur/GeelJire keeps disingenuously calling others a banned sock when he himself is one. Please keep an eye on this user and look into each of these accounts with the Checkuser tool. Here is evidence linking these accounts. I'm presently monitoring his socks and meatpuppets and compiling a list of difs, which I will email to Jimbo Wales and some honest and trustworthy moderators. Soupforone (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, it appears that Kzl55/Muktar Alleby/Koodbuur/GeelJire has a new sock account, Thylacoop5, with his usual modus operandi:
(1) Identify accounts whose edits go against his POV. As explained, this POV basically attempts to dissociate Semitic speakers from other Afroasiatic speakers by trying to associate the former with Indo-European speakers and the latter with Niger-Congo/Nilo-Saharan speakers ([35] [36]). (Kzl55 is not from the Horn of Africa, despite what he pretends. This is particularly obvious from his insecure reaction to lighter-skinned Horn individuals, which few actual persons from the region have since most local families contain both lighter and darker-skinned individuals. There is a high probability that he is the same editor as the banned user No More Mogadishu/Alifazal. This sock also feigned as being from the region and unsuccessfully attempted to report Kzl55's nemeses AcidSnow [37].)
(2) WP:BAIT those accounts into reverting him by editing text that Middayexpress or Troyoleg previously edited, often contrarily (ex. replacing Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean with some little known bodies of water that don't have the words "Arabian" or "Indian" in them [38] [39]).
(3) Report those accounts for socking using the difs that he just manufactured.
(4) Try and play down the fact that he himself has just shadowed Kzl55's edits.
Kzl55 has had some success with reporting Troyoleg's socks, but it has come at the expense of his own earlier relative anonymity (i.e., a pyrrhic victory). The over 30 editors that have this talk page watchlisted are now all too aware of he and his ilk's modus operandi, so their every move is now under the proverbial microscope. With each passing day, he is getting closer and closer to that inevitable sockpuppet investigation against him. Soupforone (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

As you are continuing to attempt to use sockpuppet accounts to evade your ban from this Wikipedia (per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress) and are using this talk page only to attack other editors, I have revoked your ability to edit it. In the event that you want further review of your ban, please use the other methods specified at WP:UNBAN. Until your ban is lifted, you are not welcome on this website. Please stop wasting your time, and the time of other people. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Mohammed Abdullah Hassan-rondini.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Mohammed Abdullah Hassan-rondini.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Algerians in Germany for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Algerians in Germany is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algerians in Germany until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Störm (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Eritreans in Germany for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eritreans in Germany is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eritreans in Germany until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Störm (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Somalis in Germany for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Somalis in Germany is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somalis in Germany until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Störm (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ethiopians in Germany for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ethiopians in Germany is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethiopians in Germany until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Störm (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Eritreans in Germany for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eritreans in Germany is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eritreans in Germany (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]