Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MPSCL/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.


 * CPCEnjoyer - MPSCL: CPCEnjoyer (edit summary: "It does not matter what Azov Battalion claims they are, they have been described as neo-nazi by reliable sources."; 14:27, 26 May 2021), MPSCL (edit summary: "It does not matter what Azov Battalion claims they are, they have been described as neo-nazi by reliable sources.", 14:45, 26 May 2021)


 * Mhorg, MPSCL, BSMRD, CPCEnjoyer - All four/five accounts edit war to keep same content on same page: Mhorg (edit summary: The Italian and French sources clearly say ...), BSMRD - CPCEnjoyer MPSCL (edit summary: The Italian and French sources clearly say..). Note that they are also supported by Elsen_Eo that looks like a "disruption only" account.


 * CPCenjoyer - BSMRD: Edit by BSMRD compare to edit by CPCenjoyer - this is painting RFE/RL and related organizations as "propaganda" organizations

— Preceding unsigned comment added by My very best wishes (talk • contribs) 16:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * MPSCL, BSMRD, CPCEnjoyer. The history of first three accounts (note that all of them have few edits):
 * 1) - MPSCL resumed activity after several months, specifically to disparage Roman Protasevich . This account has only around 1,200 edits since 2007.
 * 2) - BSMRD started editing in this April, has few edits, specifically to support positions by Chinese government, and more recently to disparage Roman Protasevich (it has less than 200 edits)
 * 3) - CPCEnjoyer was created in this April, specifically to support positions by Chinese government  and more recently to disparage Roman Protasevich (it has less than 200 edits)


 * Mhorg - MPSCL. edit by Mhorg (edit summary: "The Italian and French sources clearly say that the one in the photos is him (there is no "allegedy"), please respect international journalists.") - compare to this edit by MPSCL - same edit summary ("The Italian and French sources clearly say that the one in the photos is him."). Note that MPSCL mentioned Mhorg in their edit summary. It might be possible that MPSCL copy-pasted edit summary by Mhorg, but I can't say how likely that might be.


 * CPCEnjoyer - Mhorg. Compare this edit by Mhorg (including new ref to "The Nation") and by CPCEnjoyer, i.e. restoring very same ref to "The Nation", although it is no longer needed for referencing. However, Mhorg did notify other accounts by postings on-wiki: ,, so perhaps this is more an "on-wiki" coordination. This is hard to say.


 * CPCEnjoyer -BSMRD In response to this SPI request BSMRD doubles down on their editing of RFE/RL right now . Same strong bias was evident for CPCEnjoyer who earned an ANI complaint for editing Radio Free Asia . My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Speaking on behavior, all these accounts are focused on POV editing not just one page (Protasevich), but a specific aspect of this page they edit war about (diffs above). I mean they are focused on promoting the idea that Protasevich is allegedly a collaborator of Ukrainian neo-Nazi (the claim is false or at least unsupported by RS). They are focused on this so much that the dispute migrated to another page, Azov battalion, where three of these accounts supported each other by voting on an RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Elsen Eor - CPCEnjoyer. Please compare first edit by CPCEnjoyer in the project and first edit by Elsen Eor in the project. They are similar with respect to vandalizing WP content related to persecution of Russian opposition figures (Navalny and Politkovskaya, respectively) allegedly on the personal orders from Putin. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * CPCEnjoyer and MPSCL reacted to this SPI request very similarly: they repeatedly reverted my edits. CPCEnjoyer: ,,,,. MPSCL: . Same reaction had several IPs which appear in this request: ,. Expressing an outrage during this request is also very similar. My very best wishes (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on their comments below, Binary0101 is clearly a secondary account of either VikingDrummer or someone else who edited in the areas related to Poland. Both Binary0101 and VikingDrummer make a nearly identical, unusual and unsubstantiated claim which is completely unrelated to any specific evidence I provided above. Even if these "researchers" are not the same person (of course they may), it is plainly obvious that they are related to each other per WP:MEAT and possibly to other accounts reported in this request. Why else these brand "new" accounts would come with such comments in this SPI request? My very best wishes (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Conclusion. Based on their overall behaviors and reactions to this SPI request (which are exactly identical for two accounts), I have no doubt that CPCEnjoyer and BSMRD is the same person who pretend to be two different people by interacting with each other. This is WP:DUCK. As about other accounts - please see evidence/diffs above. They can be different people only if CPCEnjoyer/BSMRD intentionally copy-paste their editing summaries to make them appear as the same person. But it can't be the case for MPSCL (please see the timing of first two diffs in this request). Also, I never saw that before. My very best wishes (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note this series of edits by Elsen Eor and supporting IPs ,,,. Perhaps this is not the same person, but someone who decided to "join the party". This is hard to say with so few edits.My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note edits by IP:194.44.36.31. It is geographically not far from and by this IP. Both came from Ukraine. Their actions seem to be coordinated with named accounts above. My very best wishes (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC) Both IPs are likely same person based on these diffs:, - posting bare title plus link without "[]". My very best wishes (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Compare edit summaries here (BSMRD) and here (Elsen_Eor). Based on edits and timing, there is a coordination. Elsen_Eor is apparently just another "throw away" account. (moved here) My very best wishes (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Elsen Eor is not here to improve WP. The replacement of Putin by Tutu (presumably their first edit in the project, sure, it was not the first) was meant as an irony/fun, just as edit summary here  ("I have to go to bed"). My very best wishes (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @mikehawk10. MPSCL - the evidence here is not so much editing overlap and identical edits (although there are such), as very long identical editing summaries. Same with Mhorg, although the overlap in editing summaries here (see above) is smaller and less conclusive. All these accounts act as a "team". Two of these accounts are presumably "new" and two are only occasionally active.My very best wishes (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mhorg. My apology if this is disturbing for you, but including you was necessary for completeness of this report. Yes, it is entirely possible that four other accounts acted as your "support team" on pages about Roman Protasevich and Azov battalion and copied your and each other edit summaries while edit war to restore your edits (see diffs above like this ), but I have never seen such actions by unrelated accounts. You have nothing to worry about if they are not related to you. My very best wishes (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * OK. Noticing that Binary0101 was blocked per WP:SOCK. But what about Elsen Eor and their IP proxy accounts? Well, if all other accounts are different people, then the evidence above I think clearly indicates a coordination, something like WP:MEAT. At lest two of these accounts (CPCEnjoyer and BSMRD) do look like "twins". I agree with VM and GizzyCatBella below. Some sock/meat puppetry is definitely happening here. My very best wishes (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It appears there is a number of "new"/short-lived aggressive accounts that target articles related to Uyghur genocide, anti-China sentiment, and Western radio stations viewed by such accounts as propaganda organizations, just like CPCEnjoyer and BSMRD. Here is one of good examples: . But given some of the recent developments on-wiki, this is my last comment here, and I am leaving all such matters (including ones that are not related to China) to community and admins. My very best wishes (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Mikehawk10

 * 1) The two IPs are from different geolocations. The Ukranian IP (which notified the users) is flagged as an abused IP that serves as a VPN/proxy by IPQualityScore and it is listed on a few spam blacklists, as far as I can tell. The Ugandan IP (which posted on the talk page of and reverted a bunch of their edits) also appears to be on at least one spam blacklist. It's quite possible that someone is using proxies here.
 * 2) Regarding the PailSimon SPI stuff particularly, it doesn't appear that was alone in that suspicion. At the archive of the ANI thread at which PailSimon was indefinitely banned per WP:NOTHERE, you'll notice that there was at least one other editor besides  shared concerns about possible sockpuppetry.
 * 3) I don't think is a duck here; they seem to be the least like the other editors on this page in terms of overlap.
 * 4) Regarding Elsen Eor, in particular, I am strongly concerned regarding the use of proxies and IPs as socks. My reasoning follows from the status of each of the four IPs that came to back up their edits on the Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya article. The following pattern indicates a use of proxies and a mobile device in association with the user's edits. While I understand that a checkuser cannot formally comment due to privacy policy concerns except in exceptional circumstances, the following demonstrates a preponderance of the evidence that the edits constitute the use of IPs as sockpuppets. The edits made by suspected IP sockpuppets and Elsen Eor are as follows (UPDATE: after reviewing additional edits, I have revised the below list to include an additional edit that follows this pattern):
 * , in March, makes an edit that replaced the name of "Vladimir Putin" with that of "Desmond Tutu".
 * flags as a proxy (on proxycheck.io, GetIPIntel, and IPQualityScore) and was responsible for this edit that replaced the name of "Vladimir Putin" with that of "Desmond Tutu". The ISP is listed as "Hurricane Electric". The edit is made in May. This is the same edit that Elsen Eor had previously made to the page in March.
 * made this edit, which each removed a section involving the association of the date of the assassination with the birthday of Vladimir Putin.
 * flags as a proxy (on proxycheck.io, GetIPIntel, and IPQualityScore), and was responsible for this edit to the page, replacing the name of "Vladimir Putin" with that of "Desmond Tutu". The ISP is listed as "Hurricane Electric". This is the same edit that Elsen Eor had previously made to the page in March and that had made in May.
 * made this edit, which each removed a section involving the association of the date of the assassination with the birthday of Vladimir Putin.
 * does not flag as a proxy, but it is responsible for this edit, which removed a section involving the association of the date of the assassination with the birthday of Vladimir Putin. It was the exact same section as was deleted by Elsen Eor. The ISP is listed as "Orange France Mobile".
 * does flag as a proxy (on proxycheck.io, GetIPIntel, and IPQualityScore), and was responsible for this edit, which removed a section involving the association of the date of the assassination with the birthday of Vladimir Putin. It was the exact same edit that was made by 92.184.100.180. The ISP is listed as "Hurricane Electric".
 * Based upon this pattern of behavior and the public technical evidence, this looks like a heck of a lot like coordinated effort by a single actor. I'd support 's assertions that Elsen Eor is related to the IPs in some way that constitutes prohibited sockpuppetry. However, if the user is pulling proxy stunts like this, I'd also be concerned regarding the possibility that this is a highly sophisticated WP:LTA case.

To the checkuser, if you would be able to explore if any other users listed on this page use the same proxy service (as defined by the "Hurricane Electric" ISP), it would be helpful as far as technical evidence goes for seeing if there exists coordination between Elsen Eor and any other editors listed here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the updates above, I added an edit made in March by Elsen Eor. The edit includes the same birthday substitution as done by the IPs, and this similarity is one that is extremely unlikely to be independently replicated. When taken in combination with the evidence of proxy use, . (updates made — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC))
 * IPQualityScore flags and, as proxies. A WHOIS lookup reveals that both of these IPs belong to Swedish corporations.
 * is an IP address from the Philippines that does not flag as a proxy.
 * Both and  appear on a Spamhaus blacklist (links: 188.148.132.176, 49.145.131.43).
 * I presume you are asking of editing on Gulag. On that note, I also checked out a few other IPs that edited Gulag at around the same time as the problematic IPs you've listed. is labeled as a proxy and VPN by IPQualityScore, and the IP is based in the United States.
 * Is there a particular user that you suspect these IPs to be linked to? I'm not seeing any obvious connections to any of the users listed in this investigation. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular user that you suspect these IPs to be linked to? I'm not seeing any obvious connections to any of the users listed in this investigation. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

You wrote that About Mikehawk10, the same, I have nothing against him, I don't know him at all. I just point out that he is involved in the RFC on the Azov Battalion, so he seems to have an interest in banning my account. I've mentioned a bunch of IPs and (and made a passing mention to ). How do you conclude from this that I seem to have an interest in banning your account, and what does the Azov batallion RfC have to do with my edits above? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Does your recommendation of "close with no action" apply to Elsen Eor, as well? It looks like there's sufficient evidence above that there's either some WP:MEAT here or there's proxy use. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

There also appears to two additional concerns I have regarding :
 * Concern 1: I am concerned that this may be related to off-wiki brigading regarding the Uyghur genocide and related topics that is being directed by /r/genzedong, which seems to really have a dislike for me and a few other editors active in that area to the extent that people regularly post about us.
 * On April 13, on the talk page of Uyghur genocide, a personal attack was twice posted against myself and another editor, asking can we be sure that you are not part of the CIA propaganda machinery?
 * On April 17, within CPCEnjoyer's first 50 edits, they added an infobox to their user page noting that they noting that they oppose the astroturfing of CIA employees on Wikipedia under Operation Earnest Voice or other campaigns. /r/genzedong uses "Operation Earnest Voice" as a catch-all term for CIA interference in Wikipedia, despite there not actually being any public reporting that Operation Earnest Voice itself targeted Wikipedia (though there is reporting that the CIA has done so). Posts like this one (archive), and later posts from a different user target (archive) me with the accusation that I am part of "operation earnest voice" regarding my comments on the Azov Battalion article.
 * On May 6, CPCEnjoyer edited the Wikipedia page for Operation Earnest Voice to add back that Operation Earnest Voice had targeted Wikipedia, despite the Reuters source not supporting the claim
 * On May 11, I received a personal attack on my talk page from an IP that accused me of propping up American propaganda for a living and called me a spook
 * Much more recently, on June 6, a new account, decided to delete a comment on my talk page that had been left by . The edit summary was Who even asked for your opinion? Did your superior put you up to this, having to defend your fellow Langley colleagues?
 * The username, "CPCEnjoyer" seems be further evidence of some interaction with the extremely online Dengist reddit community, as the CPC is the Communist Party of China. The user did not deny this connection when challenged on it at ANI.


 * Concern 2 There are some particularly strange interactions between and  that go beyond a simple agreement.
 * On May 26, 2021, made a few edits to Wikipedia. The IP made six edits in total: three to Roman Protasevich, one to Talk:Azov Battalion, one to Requests for page protection, and one to the user talk page of . The IP was active between 17:47 (UTC) and 18:14 (UTC) on the date, and has made no edits aside from that time. It does not flag as a proxy on ProxyCheck.io, GetIPIntel, nor IPQualityScore.
 * The IP's 3 edits to Roman Protasevich all reverted edits of (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, reversion of this edit)
 * The IP's single edit to the talk page of Azov Battalion was to include a single source that they had previously noted in their edit summary (source) and to comment on why they thought the Battallion was a Neo-Nazi group.
 * After made a request to protect Roman Protasevich, the IP commented on the page. The IP wrote As Someone else said A lot of things have transpired since 2015, please do not go around and claim that an RfC in 2015 holds much weight in current situation and provided a link to the talk page of Azov Battalion (The page was later temporarily semi-protected by  )
 * After making the comment on WP:RFPP, the IP alerted to the fact that a request had been filed at RFPP. This was the only user that the IP alerted.
 * On May 26, 2021, was heavily active on Wikipedia, both on the Roman Protasevich and Azov Battalion pages and their associated talks.
 * It was who had made the comment that A lot of things have transpired since 2015, please do not go around and claim that an RfC in 2015 holds much weight in current situation.
 * I don't suspect sockpuppetry here in the sense of a user holding two accounts themselves, though this feels an awful lot like meatpuppetry. It's exceptionally uncommon for IPs to suddenly appear and then comment on your personal talk page to notify you that a procedural request has been made at the page protection requests board except when there is something more there.


 * Other note:
 * There have also been other editors who have raised concerns about possible meatpuppetry involving in the past. At an ANI discussion (which was archived without closure) multiple editors noted that they believed that the user had been involved in meatpuppetry. These editors included  and . In a previous SPI case,  stated their suspicion that CPCEnjoyer was coordinating in some way with another user, but was not confident enough to act on it. Aside from those accused,  noted that they did not believe meatpuppetry was occurring, and formally opposed any sanction following 's close of the prior SPI case. I believe that we should consider the possibility of CPCEnjoyer being involved in meatpuppetry in light of this, as well, since this is a prior SPI case. I believe that the situational evidence may be helpful in determining whether or not CPCEnjoyer has engaged in prohibited coordination, or is working with at least one WP:CRONY. In my mind, this is extremely likely. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The above comment isn't supposed to be a re-litigation of the SPI case involving and  in their own right. I missed the word two when I was looking through that, and that changes the scope of the comment in a way that's significant here, so I've struck the relevant portion of the comment above. My apologies to Toe and Euan, CPC, as well as  for my mistake in summarizing the referenced comment.
 * Regarding 's comment that I think you guys should stick to one narrative, I'm not trying to "stick to one narrative"; I'm trying to lay down the evidence as I see them, other narratives aside. The way I present this evidence reflects my personal analysis and may very well be different than how the sees them, since the argument is being made separately. (As far as I can tell, the arguments don't contradict
 * Regarding CPC's response regarding their name... it's a wholly different analysis when an editor starts frequently editing topics related to their name and engages in edit warring; it points towards a desire to WP:POVPUSH and a WP:NOTHERE mentality, the latter which has previously been brought up on administrative noticeboards. I don't think anyone here believes in good faith that there's a non-negligible connection between CPCEnjoyer's choice of username and their editing habits. I bring this up here, rather than on WP:ANI, specifically because of WP:MEAT concerns related to this sort of editing. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Czello

 * This is all compelling stuff. I wasn't aware that /r/genzedong was targeting Wikipedia (though it doesn't surprise me). I've now subscribed to the subreddit so hopefully we can intercept any meat-puppetry. The evidence above seems to make sense, especially the parts about "Operation Earnest Voice". I agree that the username "CPC Enjoyer" is a big red flag (no pun intended there). I think this does necessitate admin intervention now. — Czello 07:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

nicoljaus

 * Great job. Can you say something about these IPs?, , ?--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you! This is a difficult question. In fact, this bunch of IP acted more in the interests of, but I think it was . If I remember correctly, at that moment they supported each other. But the real picture of the relationship between master and puppets can be much more complex.-- Nicoljaus (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

VikingDrummer
All there is to see here is an attempt to attack the consensus at the RfC Talk:Azov Battalion that Azov be described as Neo-Nazi. My Very Best Wishes is one of a handful that think that Neo-Nazis should not be described as Neo-Nazis.VikingDrummer (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I found this SPI after this post linking to it at the Azov battalion RfC (where I previously voted ,). I got to the Azov battalion RfC because it was listed on the RfC page.
 * I got to Jan Zaryn because it was listed on the NPOV board page.
 * I published the Jan Zaryn RfC on the Azov battalion page,, because I thought that the two RfCs are similar in leaving out Neo Nazi and extremist ties of the articles.VikingDrummer (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus
I will just note that it is always very... interesting to see editors with few hundred edits and who registered just few months ago comment here. This is regarding the comment section just above me. This leads me to conclude that since there's smoke here... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: I've looked at this a bit more. I am not sure about Mhorg and MPSCL, both of which are established accounts, but the other ones reported here, created within the last few weeks, scream "I am a sock" per WP:DUCK. Regardless of who is the sockmaster, I think banhammering them per WP:NOTHERE is a simple and obvious solution. The longer they are allowed to quack around, the more of a failure of WP:DENY this situation becomes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Binary0101
Given the context of the RFC at Talk:Azov Battalion in which this complaint is made, as per VikingDrummer's comment above, and the possibility of it being vexatious, it should be noted that My Very Best Wishes (and Piotrus) have a history of organized tactics of "baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned or driven away from participating" on this subject matter, as found by ArbCom (at which time My Very Best Wishes was still known as Biophys ). The evidence seems to amount to nothing more than that multiple editors disagree with My Very Best Wishes and sometimes use similar language to do so. This similar language is to be expected, if someone started editing the "Earth" article with the claim that it is flat, then there will probably be multiple editors making edits with similar language such as "It is round..." or "The sources say it is round..." and, indeed, simply copy-pasting an earlier edit summary is ultimately less effort.Binary0101 (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I have been accused by My Very Best Wishes of being a sockpuppet for no other reason than that I presented hard evidence of this user's history, as well as that of user Piotrus who came to help with vague accusatory statements, of organized tactics of vexatious complaints on the subject matter of the RFC in question. Binary0101 (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Because I'm bored I'll even indulge this baseless allegation.
 * "Binary0101 is clearly a secondary account of either VikingDrummer or someone else who edited in the areas related to Poland."

I am, of course, neither. I'm just a researcher of neo-nazi groups such as Azov and especially their (social) media relations, including Wikipedia. It is on this basis that I happened to already know about the common history of users My Very Best Wishes, Piotrus, and others who were instrumental in the previous RFC to not call the Azov Battallion neo-nazi such as Volunteer Marek (who used to be known as Radeksz ), as documented by ArbCom. I accidentally stumbled on this SPI as I was cross-referencing information from the Wikipedia article in question ("Azov Battallion") and noticed the RFC. Having, from there, been pointed here to this SPI, I noticed the consecutive comments of VikingDrummer and Piotrus after the complaint by My Very Best Wishes, and thought it would be relevant to share the information I had. Nothing more, nothing less. I have never edited Wikipedia regarding Poland nor do I have any intention to, I was simply aware of the findings in question from ArbCom, and the name-changes of the users in question since then, due to a tangential research interest in the (social) media PR of far-right extremist groups.

Yes exactly, as I've amply pointed out, I'm not a Wikipedia editor - I merely just use it for cross-referencing information. I was not aware there is a minimum number of edits and subject areas prior to being allowed to make even 1 edit, could you perhaps provide that minimum? How many areas am I required to "sign off" on for making edits in, before I am allowed to make one or a handful on a single subject? Either way, I really have no intention of editing Wikipedia any further other than regarding these baseless allegations against me of sockpuppetry, which I even only indulge out of boredom and because I find the conspiracy theorizing always, frankly, hilarious - "because multiple people disagree with me therefor conspiracah!" Binary0101 (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC) <--- — Binary0101 (talk&#x20;• contribs) who has made no other edits outside this topic. GizzyCatBella 🍁  23:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

(moved from another section by - GizzyCatBella  🍁  01:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)) Oh yes the ArbCom findings (findings of fact are not the same as "accusations" btw, an accusation would be something like My Very Best Wishes' claims of me being a sockpuppet or something) on the common history and tactics of the users in question are widely known. They are quite interesting because the full leaks of the mailing list combined with the public edit history of Wikipedia provided tons of insight into the inner workings and tactics of far-right media operations. Surely, you're not implying here that merely because I and some other random editor somewhere both know well-known public information therefor...conspiracah?Binary0101 (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella
In the context of the above comment of the brand new account Binary0101, it might be also worth checking this new account who recently made similar accusations on another board see - "to not call the Azov Battallion neo-nazi such as Volunteer Marek" and compare with "whitewash of the far right" accusing user Volunteer Marek of the same. In the linked discussion, there is also a prior analysis of the editing time of account VikingDrummer who has been editing Wikipedia for a total of 22 days as of June 3rd, 2021 (starting January 2021). - GizzyCatBella  🍁  00:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, CPCEnjoyer is not a new user; this latest comment means past activity before this account. There is absolutely no way that the account registered on Apr. 8, 2021 that runs into trouble within a week but successfully supports himself with a very good understanding of the policies, and prodedures and now delivers remark that reveals throughout awareness of the old Wikipedia history, is a new user. That's my immediate impression after reading their latest comment. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  11:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @CPCEnjoyer - Please see --> WP:DUCK - GizzyCatBella  🍁  13:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @CPCEnjoyer - I voiced my opinion based on my impression after reading your statement. In my humble opinion, you are not behaving like fresh accounts commonly do. That being said, I might be mistaken (I still don't believe you didn't have extensive prior involvement with Wikipedia, sorry), but I'm taking your word for it since no hard data is verifying otherwise. Me, taking your word means nothing here however, and the concluding decision is in the hands of volunteers equipped with the necessary tools. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  14:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * CPCEnjoyer, you just wrote "While I understand English is not your first language.." How on earth would you know that English in not the first language of VM? What is going on here? <-->There you go Blablubbs, draw your own conclusions. -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  23:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Blablubbs - Not certain of importance of this but please see a potential canvassing attempt by one of the investigated here. The messages have been posted to talk page of the user who has no significant connection to Mhorg and has been possibly selected by them based on their or prior statement in this report Note that Paul hasn't been active since April 24 -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  13:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Mhorg - What kind of "advice" were you soliciting from Paul?

Let's take a look:

You posted three times, first on June 1, and you didn't ask for any advice then.

After not getting the results, you posted again on June 5th, this time removing your old comment from March 5, 2021.

Then you posted again asking Paul to explain the issue better.

Explain to whom? You didn’t say explain to me, but to explain, hints explain here.

Above suggests you desired Paul to come here to comment. The selection of the editor you approached and the way you composed your comments suggests you were trying to canvass an editor to the investigation. Notifications sent to the editor who previously had a significant conflict with the filer (MVBW) to influence the outcome in a particular way are considered inappropriate and are sanctionable. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  21:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek
Yeah, ok, so this Binary0101 account basically shows up here to this page and starts screaming I AM A SOCKPUPPET PEOPLE!!!!!!!. Why isn't this account banned yet, especially with their personal attacks and attempts at WP:OUTING?

As for the other accounts, yeah, they're WP:DUCK-quacking too. How does an account with 200 or so edits all of sudden find an obscure article like Jan Żaryn seemingly out of the blue? Like ? Or ? No way that happens unless it's already familiar with existing Wikipedia disputes. And btw, both accounts are in violation of the ArbCom 500/30 restriction which was implemented precisely to combat socking in the topic area.

How does an account which quickly runs up 500 edits - just enough to get past the 500/30 restriction in place on Poland related topics - by editing exclusively articles on Norwegian super models, all of sudden veer off into editing the topic of the far-right in Poland? Eh, VikingDrummer? Btw, VD is mostly likely indef banned user User:Miacek. He's been a bit more careful with his socking than with his previous accounts but the giveaways are the interest in Estonian political parties and support for German irredentism, as well as the already noted topic of far-right in Poland, all of which were common interests of Miacek/Estlandia.

When I first encountered Mhorg I also flagged that account as not new. I don't know if they're the same as the other accounts listed here or just some independent socking going on.

And User:Blablubbs, I don't know which of these accounts are using proxies to hide behind but this topic area has quite a history of proxy-accounts jumping in to cause trouble then getting banned. I don't know if User:TonyBallioni is currently active but he is familiar with the backround here. Frankly, any account which is using proxies and is causing/enflaming disputes should be banned on sight. This topic area is a complete disaster when it comes to disruptive socking.  Volunteer Marek  02:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Also User:Blablubbs please take a look at this account. Very few edits but very obvious overlap with VikingDrummer.  Volunteer Marek  03:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

BSMRD and CPCEnjoyer both have fewer than 240 edits and are brand new, yet somehow they already managed to edit the same eight controversial pages together. IF they're not the same person then there's definetly some meat puppetry going on.  Volunteer Marek  03:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Lol. So now, I’m trying clumsily to defend themselves, CPCEnjoyer references something that. Happened on Wikipedia... TWELVE YEARS AGO. As if it’s something a brand new account with 200 edits would know about. Because, you know, the quacking just wasn’t loud enough previously.  Volunteer Marek  16:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

CPC, the fact you’re obsessed with trying to relitigate an ArbCom case from twelve years ago kind of gives your game away. Keep quacking.  Volunteer Marek  17:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, this one's kind of hillarious. CPCEnjoyer writes, quote, Sad that sockpuppet investigations have been reduced to... Which pretty clearly means they're familiar with what SPI was before it was, you know, reduced. Yet, it's an account from April which is supposedly unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Yet they clearly have been to SPI before. Lol. DUCK.  Volunteer Marek  20:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, this one too. In their statement CPCEnjoyer links to this page when they accuse MVBW of being "anti Russian" (lol). Now maybe, just maybe, it would be possible for a new user to find MVBW old username at the time of the 2009 ArbCom case from following some links. But knowledge of MVBW's username from 2011? Which hasn't been linked to anywhere on this page or for that matter anywhere easily accesible? No fucking way unless this is someone who obssesively follows MVBW (and there are such banned users). No other way they would know that HN was MVBW old username. Quack quack quack.  Volunteer Marek  21:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

CPC, so you mean to tell me that when you wrote "SPI has been reduced to" you just meant... reduced in the last month? Since you know, you've supposedly only been here a a little over a month? Hahahahaha. And dude, you seem to know more about esoterics of wikipedia than most users here.  Volunteer Marek  22:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Lol. How exactly do you know that “English is not my first language”? There’s absolutely nothing around that would make you aware of that. Quack quack.  Volunteer Marek  22:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

CPC, look at you, barely a month old account and less than 250 edits and here you are lecturing long time users on Wikipedia policy, precise wording and esoteric WP links and all. Just do the usual and move on to your next account.  Volunteer Marek  23:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hahahaha. And now the "no really guys, I'm new!" DUCK is pulling out diffs from 3+ year old obscure WP:AE requests. And this from someone who supposedly never has been to WP:AE (in their brief month on Wikipedia). Man, how do you even know what WP:AE is? Keep talking, please.  Volunteer Marek  01:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

User:BSMRD, first, all that the CU showed is that you and CPCEnjoyer are unrelated to whoever MPSCL is and sure I can buy that part (though it's not clear what's going on with proxy use here). But, while I don't know about you specifically, there just is no way that CPC is not a sock puppet. It's not just the indepth knowledge of Wikipedia policy, displayed within moments of starting account, including fairly obscure WP links and policies. It's not just being able to perfectly format citations, including non-standard fields within the citation template, in their third edit. I guess with a huge stretch of credibility that could maybe sort probably not but still kind of possible be true. The smoking gun is the fact that this account was able to pull up a long retired user name of another user from 2011, one which was not mentioned or linked to anywhere here or in any proximity to the controversy. There's absolutely NO WAY that someone brand new to Wikipedia *and this topic area* could do that. You can learn and read policies, sure. But to find such an obscure minutia? Only someone who's tangled with MVBW would know this. And it doesn't end there. CPC was also able to pull out a diff from a three+ year old WP:AE report. Hell, a true new user, even if they read policy would most likely not even know what WP:AE is. And even if they did why would they go to it to search for a particular user? There's no way CPC could find this unless they've been following disputes in this area for at least three years. It's. A. WP:DUCK. At this point pretending otherwise is just insulting people's intelligence.  Volunteer Marek  04:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

CPCEnjoyer, there are several reddit accounts on that reddit who mention there that they've edited Wikipedia in the past but had gotten banned. So, yeah, the answer is "both".  Volunteer Marek  12:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

ToeSchmoker
Hello, just responding to mentioning me and asking for clarification re. bringing up an SPI levelled against myself and. I can confirm (as I suppose anyone who reads it can) that CPCEnjoyer was not one of the involved parties/suspected sockpuppets. Another user does mentions CPCEnjoyer after the checkuser is done regarding myself and EuanHolowicz432 but the admin(?) who closed the case doesn't comment on CPCEnjoyer as they aren't one of the listed suspected sockpuppets.

GeneralNotability stated their suspicion that CPCEnjoyer was coordinating in some way with another user, but was not confident enough to act on it.

Mikehawk10, given my limited interactions with you, you seem to be fairly read up on Wikipedia re. editing it, its policies, how it works etc. I hate to assume malice but I truly fail to see how you could have accidentally misinterpreted that SPI. The admin(?) closes it with "I believe these are two distinct people." (i.e. myself and EuanHolewicz432) not "three distinct people". What I have quoted from you above really strikes me as quite disingenuous. Cheers. ToeSchmoker (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

EuanHolewicz432
I see there really is no escaping the paranoia permeating some more controversial aspects of WP discourse. I thought it was over and done with, but apparently not. After being "done" with effectively hounding me, some editors incapable of letting a grudge go move on to draw comparisons with other users, new editors, new IPs, editors with quite a bit of rapport here who seem to have absolutely no reason to suddenly use, in what - in the presented terms - would be an incredibly inefficient, very clumsy and obvious use of sockpuppets in order to aid in a single dispute of the hundreds some of the accused have been involved with. Most baffling of all, seemingly some editors here seem to think that the ability to read and look up information - the core of what makes a Wiki editor - applied to WP policy and internal workings is black magic and indicative of being a banned user back to keep old conflict goings - a stunning display of projection, if I do say so myself. All of this underlined by dropping even the mere pretense of professionalism in what looks to be a slightly more elaborate and verbose form of schoolyard bullying. Without dragging this on - I believe a lot of the accusing parties here would benefit from putting some energy into editing and discussing issues instead of resorting to a SPI and planned AN/I every time a discussion goes somewhere they don't like. I have no involvement in this apart from the dead-horse-beating incident above - that is, invoking my SPI - in what to my eyes appears to be a quite blatant lie, as well, as the statement invoked had quite literally nothing to do with any of the editors accused in this SPI. The statement beforehand retracted in light of Mikehawk10's edit clarifying the situation and retracting his own statement. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

BSMRD
Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean it's a conspiracy, quite frankly I don't really care about Protasevich I mostly popped in because it was a current event, and at this point I'm more concerned abut the efforts to whitewash the Azov Battalion that sprung out of that article, an effort whose most vociferous supporter I might add, is you. I reverted your edit because multiple editors have told you to wait for the talk page to reach a conclusion, just because people agree doesn't mean they are the same person. I don't see how the comparison of my reversion of your repeated edit and Elsen's prove anything, other than that we both disagree with you and think you should wait. As for RFE/RL, I added one line about how multiple observers have called RFE/RL US propaganda(did not use wikivoice), which is a true statement. If you would like I can tell you all about how real of a person I am, but I don't see much point. BSMRD (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just chiming in again here, since CPC and I are "definitely the same person" because we talk to each other, which somehow proves we are actually faking(seriously this conspiratorial nonsense is ridiculous), here is a link to the Azov RfC Discussion(basically the only place we have directly communicated that I can think of aside from a joke on their talk page) where we disagree with each other(minorly, but still). For your own sake, please drop this, it's extremely embarrassing. While I'm here, I am curious about the IP that pinged us all though, it is a bit strange that that is all they have done.BSMRD (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit again,Conclusion. Based on their overall behaviors and reactions to this SPI request (which are exactly identical for two accounts), I have no doubt that CPCEnjoyer and BSMRD is the same person who pretend to be two different people by interacting with each other Called it in my edit summary lmao. BSMRD (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit again, but again. There seems to be a conception that a low number of edits means a user couldn't possibly understand wikipedia policy, which I really don't get. The basic principles of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines really aren't hard to understand, and reading and quoting Wikipedia's policy pages is something anyone can do, whether they have two edits or two thousand. BSMRD (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I know you mostly seem to be in a spat with CPC, but I would just like to note that I am not new to Wikipedia, nor will I pretend to be. I have had this account since 2018, and I have recently found myself enjoying editing in my recently expanded freetime. I suspect CPC is a person with similar interests/political leanings to my own. As for the issue of Jan Zaryn, that RfC was linked on the Azov Battalion talk page (I suspect to pull in editors sympathetic to VD's views), and I voted since I had no reason not to(500/30 does not apply to talk pages, and even then it's application to that page is extremely dubious). Many of your objections seem to stem from an idea that low edit count users can't possibly have sophisticated opinions, an unfortunately common view across wikipedia. Regardless, CheckUser turned up negative, and there is nothing tying any of us together beyond some shared opinions and reversion of some of MVBW's edits, so I suspect we will be done here soon enough.BSMRD (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There is some strangeness with IPs going on, both regarding Elsen Eor as MikeHawk10 has brought up, and the one that brought this to all of our attention. I think a close on this with myself, Mhorg, MPSCL, and CPC would be warranted, and a seperate SPI on Elsen and these IPs. BSMRD (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

CPCEnjoyer
Sad that sockpuppet investigations have been reduced to "multiple editors disagree with me, therefore they must be the same person". I am not a sockpuppet of anyone, nor is anyone my sockpuppet. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I have decided that I will indulge in answering all of your allegations:
 * CPCEnjoyer (edit summary: "It does not matter what Azov Battalion claims they are, they have been ..."), MPSCL (edit summary: "It does not matter what Azov Battalion claims they are, they have been...") Another person used the same edit summary, do not see how that is any proof.
 * All four accounts edit war to keep same content on same page: Mhorg, BSMRD - CPCEnjoyer MPSCL. Note that they are also supported by Elsen_Eo that looks like a "disruption only" account. This is usually the case when you only accuse people who disagree with you.
 * Edit by BSMRD compare to edit by CPCenjoyer - this is painting RFE/RL and related organizations as "propaganda" organizations The exact/similar wording was added by another editor, Volteer1 on Radio Free Asia page, so I assume BSMRD just copied it from there, also there is a month gap between those edits, if I really wanted to edit that onto Radio Free Liberty, I would have done it myself.
 * [5] - CPCEnjoyer was created in this April, specifically to support positions by Chinese government [6] and more recently to disparage Roman Protasevich. These are simply unfounded allegations, I do not go around claiming you are white-washing ukrainian war-crimes and creating anti-russia articles, even though I easily could and I wouldn't be lying either.
 * edit by Mhorg (edit summary: "The Italian and French sources clearly say that the one in the photos is him (there is no "allegedy"), please respect international journalists.") - compare to this edit by MPSCL - same edit summary[...] I assume this is the same situation as with me.
 * Compare this edit by Mhorg (including new ref to "The Nation") and by CPCEnjoyer, i.e. restoring very same ref to "The Nation", although it is no longer needed for referencing [...] That source was originally a part of the lead, I assume that's why he put it further down the article, after it was removed. I restored it to the lead as well.
 * Note edits by IP:194.44.36.31. It is geographically not far from this IP. Their actions seem to be coordinated with named accounts above. Yes, one thousand kilometres, definitely not "geographically far".
 * All in all, these allegations are unfounded, but that seems to be the norm on Wikipedia. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you guys should stick to one narrative, so am I a sockpuppet of someone from 16 years ago, "someone who obssesively follows MVBW (and there are such banned users)." or am I "related to off-wiki brigading regarding the Uyghur genocide and related topics that is being directed by /r/genzedong"? Or am I both at the same now? Interesting.

seems to really have a dislike for me and a few other editors active in that area to the extent that people regularly post about us. If this is meant to imply that I am one of these people that "regularly post about you", I am afraid you'll find you probably care more for me than I do for you, sadly. I would even go as far as to say that you are one of my biggest fans on Wikipedia, only tied with My very best wishes.

On April 13, on the talk page of Uyghur genocide, a personal attack was twice posted against myself and another editor, asking can we be sure that you are not part of the CIA propaganda machinery? Not sure how this relates to me, I would assume this is because of your reputation at the reddit community. I only edit with this account, if I use the Wikipedia from phone I do not edit, only read.

On April 17, within CPCEnjoyer's first 50 edits, they added an infobox to their user page noting that they noting that they oppose the astroturfing of CIA employees on Wikipedia under Operation Earnest Voice or other campaigns. /r/genzedong uses "Operation Earnest Voice" as a catch-all term for CIA interference in Wikipedia, despite there not actually being any public reporting that Operation Earnest Voice itself targeted Wikipedia (though there is reporting that the CIA has done so). I do not really understand what you meant to imply by stating that there is no reporting, because even if that were true, userboxes can express opinion and do not have to be sourced. Regarding a reddit post made on April 8th, it seem to be quotations from Wikipedia itself, so I can't really see how that is meant to "implicate" me.

Posts like this one (archive), and later posts from a different user target (archive) me with the accusation that I am part of "operation earnest voice" regarding my comments on the Azov Battalion article. Nothing to do with me, I am afraid.

On May 6, CPCEnjoyer edited the Wikipedia page for Operation Earnest Voice to add back that Operation Earnest Voice had targeted Wikipedia, despite the Reuters source not supporting the claim. This was an oversight by me, the article said that Wikipedia had been edited by multiple CIA computers and that they have edited articles about Iraq War and Guantanamo Bay, but I failed to realize that Operation Earnest Voice was not mentioned.

On May 11, I received a personal attack on my talk page from an IP that accused me of propping up American propaganda for a living and called me a spook & Much more recently, on June 6, a new account, DeerNoseRack decided to delete a comment on my talk page that had been left by Horse Eye's Back. The edit summary was Who even asked for your opinion? Did your superior put you up to this, having to defend your fellow Langley colleagues? I am sorry to hear that, but contrary to a popular belief here, I do not own a botnet nor a cabal. I have only written on your talk page once, which was recently regarding your name.

The username, "CPCEnjoyer" seems be further evidence of some interaction with the extremely online Dengist reddit community, as the CPC is the Communist Party of China. Your name is quite literally "mycock10", does that mean you are a voyeurism enthusiast now? Of course it does not, yet you claim that it is the case with me. I could probably find dozens of people being named Mikehawk on multiple pages and link you with them, it would have the same effect.

The user did not deny this connection when challenged on it at ANI. I was never accused of being a part of "reddit cabal" on my ANI as far as I can remember, but I do not think I would indulge such outrageous claims either.

There are some particularly strange interactions between 91.250.41.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and CPCEnjoyer that go beyond a simple agreement. I do not believe that is the case, don't know who the IP is nor if they actually are someone's sockpuppet, but I believe you're seeing boogeymen now.

It was CPCEnjoyer who had made the comment that A lot of things have transpired since 2015, please do not go around and claim that an RfC in 2015 holds much weight in current situation. Fail to see how IPs quoting my truthful statements equates to me using them as a puppet.

It's exceptionally uncommon for IPs to suddenly appear and then comment on your personal talk page to notify you that a procedural request has been made at the page protection requests board except when there is something more there. Yes, it is, but I can not see how that is my fault.

In a previous SPI case, GeneralNotability stated their suspicion that CPCEnjoyer was coordinating in some way with another user, but was not confident enough to act on it. While everything else you have mentioned can be taken as guesswork at best, this is a blatant lie and an attempt to misconstrue the statement of GeneralNotability. This is an SPI case regarding two other people, and, perhaps they should clarify. The checkuser was performed six days before I was even added onto the "investigation". I believe the comment was ignored because of multiple reasons with few being the complete lack of proof and the fact that it was highly unlikely. In closing, he stated "I believe these are two distinct people. I suspect that they are coordinating in some way or know each other (mostly on grounds of how quickly they showed up together at the two discussions mentioned above), but I am not confident enough in my suspicions to act on them. Closing." Two being a keyword here, meaning the other two users involved, not myself. Mikehawk10, please do not misconstrue stuff like that, it could be viewed as a personal attack. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Mhorg
I do not know much about these other users, as for the allegations against me, I do not expect anything other than actions of this type from "My very best wishes". I don't know if this is the place to put certain arguments, I would just like to remind you what kind of user is this:


 * Gordimalo\LauraWilliamson collaborates on an article with My very best wishes
 * Gordimalo\LauraWilliamson tries to get me banned by accusing me of sockpuppetry instead he is banned for sockpuppetry
 * Gordimalo\Beanom comes out of nowhere and sides again with My very best wishes (Beanom was clearly a sockpuppet)
 * Gordimalo\Beanom is investigated and banned
 * My very best wishes does everything to save him, even by contacting the admin personally.
 * PailSimon intervenes in a discussion on the same article and goes against My very best wishes
 * My very best wishes intervenes against PailSimon in an SPI--Mhorg (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

About what My very best wishes said: "Speaking on behavior, all these accounts [...] are focused on promoting the idea that Protasevich is allegedly a collaborator of Ukrainian neo-Nazi (the claim is false or at least unsupported by RS)" Just to underline the correct behavior of My very best wishes, he even manages to lie here by saying that I'm doing a POV pushing without RS, while the part I inserted and then removed by him contains 3 reliable sources (Agenzia Giornalistica Italia, Radio France Internationale, Current Time TV) that report in a neutral way some objective facts. It's also funny how, when I pointed this out to him in the discussion, he only appealed to the "due weight", and he wrote also that the information I was trying to put in the article "was covered in best mainstream sources (such as BBC) very little" So, was that part covered very little or not covered at all as he is saying here? Why is the user lying to say that there is no RS talking about this fact? This SPI seem to me just a way to get me out of the whole encyclopedia... and just another one of his operations to turn discussions in his favor, as I have already shown in the case of Gordimalo.--Mhorg (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea how these other users can be linked to me, as I have worked for years on the Italian Wikipedia (which "My very best wishes" is aware of... perhaps he is hoping for a miracle). I just want to add a little information about the users who intervened who would appear not to be involved: Nicoljaus and Mikehawk10. Regarding Nicoljaus, he received a topic ban for a wikihound case against me, most of the conflicts however were between me and "My very best wishes", I had nothing against Nicoljaus. I just asked him to not follow me... and I'm very sorry he only intervened here for what appears to be revenge. About Mikehawk10, the same, I have nothing against him, I don't know him at all. I just point out that he is involved in the RFC on the Azov Battalion, so he seems to have an interest in banning my account (I hope that when this story is over we can start over in the right way).--Mhorg (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Another sad fact, the last mod by Nicoljaus is of February 27, 2021 (more than 3 months of stop). It seems to me quite unlikely that he decided here and now (specifically against me) to resume working on the encyclopedia. Is it possible that someone is alerting other users by email or by methods outside the encyclopedia, just to settle old conflicts?--Mhorg (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I apologize if I make use of the material displayed by the sockpuppet "Binary", because since the user "My very best wishes" tries to get me into this scandal, I think I have the right to ask certain questions. In that arbitration case it is shown how MVBW\Biophys years ago coordinated through a mailing list with other users. I copy the text from the request: "Improper coordination:This included [...] supporting each other in disputes even when otherwise uninvolved in them. [...] Certain members of the mailing list have further displayed a battleground mentality." I wonder why in an SPI so many users participate in mass in support of the filer (coincidentally, from what I see, most seem to be the same ones with whom he shares most of the discussions on the same side). Maybe I do not have experience in this stuff, and what happened here is normal... but I have already shown that Nicoljaus after 3 months of stop only appears here to attack me. May I ask if it is legitimate to doubt certain dynamics?--Mhorg (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Answers to other users:

You are intervening in an SPI where a user I have had problems with since February is now accusing me of being an MPSCL sockpuppet. I am not even checking the amount of data you are carrying, I have no need to defend myself, I know very well how I behave in the encyclopedia and I have nothing to fear.--Mhorg (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's canvassing to ask publicly if another user's behavior is right or not. In that old discussion I am exposing all my concerns regarding "My very best wishes". And, no, you are wrong if you think I wrote that comment requesting support here: I just don't need anything here, because I fear nothing about these allegations of being a sockpuppet of MPSCL. Also please note that, since I'm writing to him, PaulSiebert has not intervened even once in any discussion between me and My very best wishes... we are not doing "team", as opposed to several users who here seem to intervene as a squad in support of My very best wishes allegations. Right?--Mhorg (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you trying in every way to get me sanctioned like MVBW is doing here? Please look at that discussion between me and PaulSiebert: there is everything going on between me and MVBW. I was accused for no reason at all (looking at the diffs shown here), and just to get me off Wikipedia, in an SPI filed by MVBW. Do you think this is not something to "register" in the discussion about what's going on between me and MVBW? And again no, I didn't ask him to explain here, I asked him to explain in the discussion between me and him (if I'm not even defending myself here, not even on those two diffs used against me, why would I even ask someone else for help?). As for the "removed" comment, as you say, I replaced that part with the precise reconstruction of the relationship between Gordimalo and MVBW that I made here in the SPI, I don't really understand what you are alluding to.--Mhorg (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

MPSCL
Wow. I suspect my involvement in all of this stems from ONE edit, in which I agreed with the stance of MHorg, reflected this by stating 'per MHorg', while also copying parts of his edit summary. Aware of the risk of making the same 'mistake' again - let me be bold after being a WP editor for almost fifteen years, and quote the statement of another user, here above, and say my accuser seemingly goes by the rationale of 'multiple editors disagree with me, therefore they must be the same person'.

Shame on this accuser, wasting everyone's time with this request. Please let me know what we might do to have this user sanctioned themselves, since this is clearly an attempt to abuse proper procedure (and, as I have learned, not for the first time).

This is is all I will say for now on this ridiculous matter, but I'd be glad to elaborate in case of said sanctioning procedure, which I would wholly endorse and very much encourage. MPSCL 13:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See also the bottom of this talk page, where this SPI is actively being used by the accuser for, let's just call it, 'unjust purposes'. It certainly looks like the accuser is actively (and conveniently) discouraging any accounts who stand accused here from editing until this SPI is resolved. Shame. MPSCL  16:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * RE: this edit - Reverting the accuser twice (!) apparently also seems to count as ample reason for an accusation of sock puppetry, as does the audacity of even reacting to this in any sort of disapproving way. This continued defamation appears to be very close to (or already over) the line of becoming an outright personal attack. I strongly encourage the accuser of striking this request ASAP, or they may very well end up shooting themselves in the foot with this seemingly increasing malicious and ridiculous behavior. MPSCL  15:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@ SPI clerk(s): Thanks for looking at this, Blablubbs. I hope this can be resolved in due time. And please, also inform me on every possible procedure I can follow towards sanctioning my wrongful accuser in this case. Much appreciated. MPSCL 17:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Elsen Eor
I have been warned on my talk page by 194.44.36.31 that My very best wishes was trying to get me "banned as a Sock puppet" along with the other indictees. I wish to thank him here, regardless of whether he is himself a sock puppet or not, since the suer did not deem it necessary to let me know of his complaint. Instead, Mr Very best Wishes, who is most certainly a very gracious person, left me a note to inform me that my editing on subjects such as Eastern Europe or the Balkans could expose me to discretionary sanctions. After a quick perusal of his last edits, I felt convinced that he deserved this warning much more than I did, and therefore I sent it back to him. As for his case against me and the other gentlemen involved in this suit, I can do no other than encourage the checkusers to proceed with their investigation, since I know neither the defendants nor the prosecutor. However, I cannot help but note the irony for a newcomer, whose edits are few and far between on the English version, to be subjected to this procedure by a gentleman who seems to be more comfortable with the Cyrillic alphabet than with the English tongue..--Elsen Eor (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)<--- — Elsen Eor (talk&#x20;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this. GizzyCatBella 🍁  23:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Minor housekeeping note:, could I ask you to please sign any posts you make at SPI, including initial reports and follow-up evidence you present? Thanks. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 20:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to process the entire thing, at least not right now, but a note regarding proxies: While IPQS is very much hit or miss with regard to proxy confirmation and flags most things that have ever had an active internet connection, I can confirm from a spot check (didn't look at all of the IPs) that there is proxy use here. The two Swedish IPs are proxies, and I'd call the Ugandan one highly likely based on some technical factors, behaviour, and the type of service involved. I'm not immediately seeing any VPN fingerprints that I know on the two Hurricane Electric ones, so this might just be colocation, but I haven't run any deep checks. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 17:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop edit-warring over this. MVBW, the post has been here long enough that removal could be considered disruptive; however, you are free to strike or hat it. Thanks. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 18:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Checkuser does not reveal any obvious links between accounts. W.R.T. MPSCL due to proxy use (they have ip block exempt), ❌ regarding all other accounts. Recommend closing without action. ST47 (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the check. Was anything in the CU data reminiscent of ? I presume it's a given for, but it would be interesting to know for the others. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 08:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since when do we per-editor comment sections? My suspicion is some kind of off-wiki canvassing effort is afoot here. Closing per ST47's recommendation. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)