Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mhhossein/Archive

21 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

here It is hilariously obvious that he was first logged into one account, and made a comment, then he went into the other account, saw that he had made a comment with an account which was not being used in that debate and rectified his error. You can see from the AFD page that the previous comments have discussed five sources but both Hossein and Saff are arguing for a specific magazine in this comment. The odds of such a coincidence are quite mind boggling, that two editors, within the space of one minute, come up with the same argument, for the same source and then conflict each others edits. And then one of them does not even realize that his comment has been changed even though he is online and editing, btw he has still not changed the comment, neither has he given his opinion as a new comment. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add the following IP to the list of suspect sockpuppets: Saff V. and Mhhossein have been editing the article on List of casualties in Husayn's army at the Battle of Karbala to present the point of view that one side in the battle were not an army but merely the companions of Huasyn ibn Ali. See article history. The IP has suddenly appeared made two revert to support their point of view. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 15:58, 20 November 2015 (Undid revision 691293354 by Toddy1 (talk) undid edit of pro yazid PoV pusher)
 * 06:11, 21 November 2015(Undid revision 691625190 by Edward321 (talk))
 * WOW! just WOW! two editors have similar views, so they are definitely the same! Are you serious Toddy1? Mhhossein (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Toddy1- what a retard PoV pusher you really are. Just because I disagree with you, you make this accusation. You should be investigated for making false claims against neutral editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.119.75 (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Toddy1, HyperGaruda, and FreeatlastChitchat had same edits and had same idea about editing some articles. Therefore, they are one person. Is it correct? You must think more.Saff V. (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

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


 * Dear FreeatlastChitchat! how is it "hilariously obvious"? Just because of the time? Mhhossein (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, because you edited the comment from both of your accounts :P. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you support your claim using diffs? (I don't have two accounts so you can't say: "from both of your accounts"?) Mhhossein (talk) 10:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes ofc, just click the "here" link in the evidence section. You first edited with this account and signed with four tildes, then you logged onto Saff V and realised that you were not using that account in your debate, so you edited your comment using Saff and again signed with tildes. The diff shows this clearly. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Which diff? To be honest I think you are talking about a conspiracy theory. Let the admins do their job and don't bother yourself writing scenarios. Mhhossein (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * When I want save my answer, I saw layout of the edit conflict page. Therefore, I added my answer again and save the page.Saff V. (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So the conspiracy theory stems from this diff! What's wrong here? Can an admin explain? Mhhossein (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The explanation by User:Saff V. cannot possibly be true. If Saff V's explanation were true, then he/she would not have been editing Mhhossein's comment.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Post made by the Mhhossein account at 09:37, 21 November 2015
 * Edit of that post by the Saff V. account at 09:38, 21 November 2015
 * Further edit of the same comment by the Saff V. account at 10:06, 21 November 2015
 * Further edit of the same comment by the Saff V. account at 10:10, 21 November 2015
 * Yet another edit of the same comment by the Saff V. account at 10:13, 21 November 2015 - this one restores part of the 09:37 text.


 * Comment from an editor sometimes involved. Although Mhhossein and Saff V. share the same point of view, I doubt that they are the same user when comparing their fluency in English. Mhhossein's English is good, but Saff V.'s English is quite bad to be honest (no offence, but it demonstrates my point). The anon IP seems to be even more unrelated: UK-based, seems fluent in English considering his/her use of idiomatic expressions. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * You asked for an explanation from an administrator. There are at least two possiblities for what happened with your comment being edited by Saff V. The first is that you're the same person. That's the allegation. The second is that Saff V. didn't realize that refactoring another user's comment is generally prohibited and you didn't object. The biggest problem with the second possibility is that even if Saff V. didn't realize what they were doing was wrong, you should have objected. I wouldn't have let something like that go by if it were my comments. You should have reverted the changes back to your initial comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bbb23: Thanks fair your fair comment. I was sure of having only one account and did not pay attention that the nominator has provided a diff which I had not noticed until I made this edit. I would take an action at once, if had realized the wrong edit. In fact I got the whole story after a delay, so "the biggest problem" which you mentioned is not that big assuming good faith. Mhhossein (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, Saff V. thinks that a WP:EDC had happened. Mhhossein (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Saff V. seems to have a little habit of uncareful editing when nearby existing text. Nothing serious, but this sometimes leads to misunderstandings such as this SPI. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The two accounts are . Closing with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Suspected sockpuppeteer is the only delete vote on Articles for deletion/Hootan Dolati, an Iranian political prisoner, and strongly wants the article to be deleted due to a close connection to the topic. 111695's only edits are to make 10 useless edits to userpage, to create an SPI for the article creator, vote to delete on AfD citing the same shortcuts as master, and to create Articles for deletion/Hossein Derakhshan (2nd nomination) for a similar Iranian political prisoner. Non-Latin user's only edits are to reference in the Hootan AfD a Persian Wikipedia AfD that was closed due to being created by a sock, and referencing the previously mentioned SPI. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 14:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment: It's just a bad faith action on nominator's part. Nothing more. Let's see the result. -- M h hossein   talk 18:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm a little skeptical, but OK, there's enough for a CheckUser. . Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 15:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The two listed accounts are ❌ to the master.
 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other:
 * Blocked without tags. The behavioral connections are clearer between some accounts more than others. For example, HowDoesThisEvenwork and JohannesSve are obviously behaviorally connected to each other but not so obviously connected to 111695 and جسورانه. I have no clue who the master is, and there may be other accounts, but the technical data is sometimes hard to work with.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, is the oldest account - created in 2005. Wow. GABgab 16:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Copied to Sockpuppet investigations/111695 and closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked without tags. The behavioral connections are clearer between some accounts more than others. For example, HowDoesThisEvenwork and JohannesSve are obviously behaviorally connected to each other but not so obviously connected to 111695 and جسورانه. I have no clue who the master is, and there may be other accounts, but the technical data is sometimes hard to work with.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, is the oldest account - created in 2005. Wow. GABgab 16:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Copied to Sockpuppet investigations/111695 and closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked without tags. The behavioral connections are clearer between some accounts more than others. For example, HowDoesThisEvenwork and JohannesSve are obviously behaviorally connected to each other but not so obviously connected to 111695 and جسورانه. I have no clue who the master is, and there may be other accounts, but the technical data is sometimes hard to work with.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, is the oldest account - created in 2005. Wow. GABgab 16:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Copied to Sockpuppet investigations/111695 and closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both users are heavily involved in the same pages, and both users use the same edit summaries (and lowercases):

 
 * "more info"


 * "copy ed"

 

 
 * "citation"

 
 * "per talk"

 
 * "new section"

 
 * "accurate wording"

 
 * "comment"

 
 * "reflecting"

 
 * "more accurate"

 
 * "more details"

 
 * "already discussed"

There are more examples of matching edit summaries for both accounts.

Both users tend to support each other on article's Talk pages to gain "consensus" - some recent examples:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Interaction Timeline tool shows editors are involved in a lot of the same pages, sometimes editing consecutively (when one finishes, the other carries on, and viseversa). Interaction Timeline tool also shows that at times one account edits for several days while the other is absent, and viseversa:


 * 


 * 

Also worth noting concerning Expectant of Light: his first edits (on May 14, 2017) include edit summaries using terminology not characteristic of a new user (such as "lead updated", "moving up template"), as well as reverting editor Emir of Wikipedia. By the second time he logged in to edit he was using terms such as "adding new POV", "copy-ed the list of works", and "finally sortin' out the div col mess!":
 * 
 * 

Also, both editors use canvassing to generate support on their POV:
 * 
 * 

Looking at Expectant of Light's initial edits, the technical and terminology knowledge strongly suggests that this is not their first account. I don't know how SPIs work but would urge moderator to look at all possible links to these accounts. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Oh, yes! We are sockpuppets! You can check our IPs and it would be immediately (un)clear! ;) As for sometimes being involved in the same pages, we appear to have same areas of interest and in the common pages that we've been involved several other users have also been. Lastly, this seems like a desperate attempt by this user to accuse his counterparties after he has been shown to be a disruptive editor. --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I think Stefka's accusations are easy to falsify for moderators. But since he apparently reinforced his case against us, I find these notes necessary. With regards to his new accusations. As far as I know Mhhossein from Persian Wikipedia, he is a Phd student. I am myself an MA student. So I suspect Mhhossein just like myself has a lot of time online to work on Wiki. I'm myself a kind of internet and online research nerd. And since we have shared areas of interest we follow many similar pages, hence receiving notification when there are changes sometimes prompting us to work on similar pages in short intervals. If two users happen to work on a same page at the same time, it is natural that there will be short intervals between their edits. Another point, our writing style is also different. I speak and write near-native English . As for matching edit summaries, well you can find those random cases with any other random editors. --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Just checking his writing style in some recent talkpages, I take what I said back. He does seem as fluent. But hmm, that makes many of us sockpuppets then! :)) --Expectant of Light (talk) 07:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It will be interesting to see what the Check User results are. If these two users are the same person, then they must have two computers based on the intertwined contributions report. See activity in the 13th hour of July 2, for instance, where the activity is 20 seconds apart. And, the activity on June 16 seems to show they are two people. However, it is true that they follow many of the the same articles and support one another's position. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * But it is strange that they share so many pages that they've contributed to and been in long-standing conversations about articles, but I only see one instance where they have posted on one another's page this posting of an event notice. I can see not wanting to add posts that seem like they are ganging up on others, but no "hello" we seem to like the same topics, etc.?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Or maybe because we know each other in real life? Rocket science? no! --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, that would explain it, especially if you both live in the same house. I don't have a clear opinion - I am about 50/50.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Or a superhuman with an incredible ability to concentrate on several pages and topics at the same time while also switching back and forth into two to accounts to edit them without leaving behind any trace of unique identity! I don't know of Mhhossein but I wish I had that super ability! :)) --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL!!!! Yes, that occurred to me, too - while wearing a cape and tights.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: The "gang up" conspiracy theory is a means for distracting eyes from the filer's misconduct in the article and the consequent ANI report. Looking at the article history, it seems that there had been back and forth between him and other editors when me and Expectant of Light were not editing. Among other things, there he was accused of cherry picking by them. -- M h hossein   talk 18:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment was a sock of . --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . --Deskana (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing with no action. Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Too many instances in People’s Mujahedin of Iran where Mhhossein either defends or answers on behalf of Kazemita1. Both editors are continually campaigning the same POV there and have very similar editing patterns. A checkuser may not find they are technically related, but they do seem to have an off-wiki connection, suggesting they are meatpuppets, so requesting review of behavioral evidence.

More recently, the IP 5.212.193.42 re-posted Kazemita1’s edits that were reverted several times by other editors, which also is likely to be a meat or sock of these accounts: ,

Kazemita1's editing history shows that, after taking a few months break in 2018, has been a single purpose account on People's Mujahedin of Iran since April 2019 (an article they had not edited before). Both Kazemita1 and Mhhossein are very devoted to adding an Iranian government POV in that article. Both editors frequently supporting each other’s edits, back up each other’s points, and even finish each other’s conversations (both editors have also been cautioned repeatedly for edit warring in this page).

There was another user, User:Expectant of Light, with similar editing POV as Mhhossein and Kazemita1. A checkuser result found Mhhossein and Expectant of Light to be different accounts, but EoL was later discovered to be part of a major sock farm.


 * Behavioral evidence


 * In this Talk page discussion, Mhhossein inserts an edit back in the article which Kazemita had inserted before, and when asked about this in the Talk page, Kazemita1 replies on Mhhossen’s behalf saying "... I take the liberty to answer on his behalf...." In the same talk page discussion, Kazemita1 eludes that Mhhossein will do his editing for him saying "I should say I am going to have someone (link to Mhhossein) do it for me given the "sanctions"")
 * In this Talk page discussion, Kazemita1 is asked about one of their edits, and Mhhossein replies on behalf of Kazemita1
 * In this Talk page discussion, Kazemita1 gives a "text of impartiality" to an admin, which Mhhossein supports. When the admin rejects Kazemita1's "test of impartiality", Mhhossein replies on behalf of Kazemita1.
 * Both users use the terminology "Dog in this fight". Mhhossein: "showing what dog did MEK have in the fight." Kazemita1: "The guy has no dog in this fight and is a renowned scholar."
 * Both users use the terminology “Burden is on you”. Mhhossein: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Kazemita1: "I am afraid the burden of proof is on you."
 * Both users use the terminology "two cents". Mhhossein: "My two cents; These executions were carried out when MEK" Kazemita1: "give us your two cents regarding"
 * Both users use the terminology "Neutralized". Mhhossein: "which need to be toned down and neutralized before anything else." Kazemita1: "I therefore, neutralized the text"
 * Both users use the terminology "So-called". Mhhossein: "removed in exchange for the so-called" Kazemita1: "First of all, the so-called Heshmat Alavi"
 * Both users use the expression "Oops". Mhhossein: . Kazemita1:
 * Both users use the term "Endorse". Mhhossein: "which does not endorse the current removal." Kazemita1: "are all endorsing"
 * Both users use the term "WP:ONUS". Mhhossein: . Kazemita1:
 * Both users use the term "Defamatory". Mhhossein: "You have restored a defamatory and challenging material regarding a BLP. Wikipedia". Kazemita1: "It is defamatory because Col. Leo McCloskey" Alex-h (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

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

This report is both ridiculous and bad faith. Just imagine; in this edit I have quoted a portion from WP:PROVEIT. It is so ridiculous, since words such as "endorse", "Defamatory", "WP:ONUS" are very common in WP. Ready for response at the admins request. -- M h hossein   talk 03:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe can have a good insight here, since he has been involved in taking care of things since long ago. -- M h hossein   talk 04:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Intuitively, I don't believe Mhhossein, Kazemita1 or Saff V. are sock accounts. El_C 02:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I really astonish why you got me involved?!Saff V. (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to give you my analysis, but I would prefer to do it in private, yes. Given that I'm attempting to mediate an already polarized dispute, I can be more frank about its protagonists over email. I'll email you shortly. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There are some vague points here and I need you to shed light on them. Looking at the evidences provided, such as me and Kazmeita both used "Oops", "So-called", "Endorsed", "WP:ONUS" (this evidence is so funny!!!) and etc, one would say things are more than clear. However, you even attempted CU! That's signaling something to and I am thinking on how meaningful this action could be. Worse than that, YOU even included Saff v. who has no dog in this fight (OMG! Kazemita1 has used this expression so that's a bit suspicious that I am using it, too). I am specially comparing the current ridiculous report with this one which, despite an admin support, left Stale by you. Could you please explain what's going on? -- M h hossein   talk 06:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I noticed that you have been involved in some of the discussions at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. I'd like a behavioral analysis of the following editors, all of whom have participated in the discussions:, and. If for whatever reason you don't wish to do this, please let me know here. If you'd prefer your analysis to be private, please e-mail me. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In the first report in this case, Saffa V. was alleged to be a sock of Mhhossein. I found the two users to be technically and closed the report with no action. Since that time, Saffa V.'s technical data has changed, making my original finding obsolete. At this point in time, Mhhossein, Saffa V., and Kazemita1 are technically a little less than . That said, based on 's very helpful e-mail, I agree that the behavioral evidence is insufficient to take any action. I am not closing this report immediately in case anyone cares to comment (constructively, please don't repeat anything that's already been said).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

is an account created in September this year with currently 115 edits. This rather new account has managed to find their way to editing alongside in controversial articles, some of which have a history of sockpuppetry.

A month after registering for the first time, Maqdisi117 somehow finds their way to WP:OR to support Mhhossein’s post there. 

Maqdisi117 then starts editing National Council of Resistance of Iran, which myself and another editor revert. Maqdisi117 asks on the article’s talk page why his edits are getting reverted, and Mhhossein gets involved (Mhhossein had never edited this article prior to Maqdisi117 getting involved). 

Maqdisi117 then votes in support of Mhhossein at a RfC where Mhhossein is heavily involved:

Both editors share similar time cards and similar traits in their edits. I suspect this is more likely a coordinated meatpuppetry case rather than sockpuppetry, but a CU wouldn't hurt:


 * Maqdisi117: using "~" ("~2 billion"):
 * Mhhossein: using "~" ("~60%"):


 * Maqdisi117: Using " + " (in edit summary):
 * Mhhossein: Using " + " (in edit summary):


 * Maqdisi117: "Moreover,"
 * Mhhossein: "Moreover,"    etc...


 * Maqdisi117: "clarification" (in edit summary)
 * Mhhossein: "clarification" (in edit summary)

Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * , SPI reports and the use of CU are not a fishing expedition. Like you, is an editor in good standing who focuses on the WP:GS/IRANPOL topic area. Now, I realize that you're both on opposing sides, but to suggest that Mhhossein, suddenly out of the blue, would take it upon themselves to duplicate a voice in the form of a new editor — I'm sorry, but that just stretches belief for me. Especially with you having such a flimsy basis for the claim: the usage of 4 extremely common words and characters. "Moreover," "~," "+," and "clarification" — really? Who hasn't made use of these at some point? And then you go on to say that socking isn't even the most likely possibility here, but that instead, we may be dealing with a coordinated meat. But coordinated how? How do you prove that? Obviously, CU can't help with anything like that. For all we know, this is an individual who realized that they share Mhhossein's views, and accordingly, may have decided to browse some his respective contributions. Likewise, Mhhossein might have been browsing the contributions of a like-minded new user. At face value, either of these are perfectly legitimate. I'm just not seeing any grounds to the assertion that Mhhossein has had any (prior meat) knowledge about or any coordination with that new account. Honestly, I'm surprised and dissapointed by this report. Because it's obvious that it fails on a number of levels, not least of which is the potential poisoning of any meaningful dispute resolution in the topic area for some time to come... El_C 10:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * El_C: I appreciate your assessment and understand your points. Another user that became increasingly interested in that page that turned out to be a sock was Expectant of Light, and at the time nobody thought it a likely sockpuppet. As I see it, it just seems highly unlikely that an new editor with so few edits would find their way to WP:OR to support Mhhossein's post there (I think it took me a couple of years before I became aware of this noticeboard); subsequently finding their way to other controversial articles also in support of Mhhossein. Could it be just a coincidence? yes, of course it could be. I thought it'd be worth mentioning anyways because there has been sockpuppetry in these pages in the past. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, I have no idea whether that new user is a sock of or a meat for someone. I'm just saying that leveling such an accusation specifically at Mhhossein, whom you yourself know to be longstanding in the topic area, needs a firm evidentiary basis, which your report sorely lacks. You'll need more than just paths crossing a couple of times or similar usage of some extremely common words and characters. The reason I'm being so firm about this is that SPI has always been susceptible to abuse as a consequence of flawed reports, with these often resulting in acrimony. Acrimony which is always a lose-lose proposition for all concerned. El_C 11:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * As El C points out, the textual analysis here is not indicative of anything. Maqdisi117 had found their way to talk page discussions before the one's listed here, so their presence in discussions involving Mhhossein should not be surprising considering their shared interests. Direct interactions between the two editors do not come across as performative. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we keep this SPI open until the RfC on that talk page has been closed? (just in case we get anything that looks more concretely performative). Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is a terrible idea. We don't keep SPI reports open just for the odd chance that an editor (in good standing) might end up engaging in socking or meat coordination. And seeing as 's record in so far as these violations are concerned is without blemish, I am really struggling to understand your thought process there. You are basically asking us to assume bad faith about Mhhossein's integrity (even if only in potential) by keeping this report open as some sort of a backup for any future wrongdoing. No thank you. Please do better in assuming the good faith of your content opponents. El_C 21:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)