Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MBUSHIstory/Archive

14 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Donald Trump disruption mostly. 00:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

, OK, I shall resubmit but under the other username. Thank you. 13:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)




 * Kingshowman: Edited July 26 to September 1: 41 edits regarding Donald Trump: Hostile edit summaries:
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=675503824 SHOUTING]


 * NobleHumanBeing: Edited from December 10 to December 11: After only editing for two days and 51 total edits:
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016&diff=prev&oldid=694741998 First ever contribution]—‌Verbose edit summary
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016&diff=prev&oldid=694741998 4th edit ever]—‌was a revert
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016&diff=prev&oldid=694742028 5th edit ever]—‌was a revert
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016&diff=prev&oldid=694742295 6th edit ever]—‌was a revert
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016&diff=prev&oldid=694742437 7th edit ever]—‌was a revert
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016&diff=prev&oldid=694742620 8th edit ever]—‌was a revert
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016&diff=prev&oldid=694742620 9th edit ever]—‌was a revert
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016&diff=prev&oldid=694743909 10th edit]—‌back to verbose and argumentative edit summaries


 * MBUSHIstory: Editing since December 8th and with less than 200 edits, was already an expert on Wikilaw, Wikijargon, links to Wikipedia guideline and policy pages Talk pages, Pinging, Edit requests, how to refresh a Ping by changing the Ping time by one minute, creating Re-directs; got accused of "digging a hole for themself" and shot back that they had been accused of [[:WP:BOOMERANG]] (in all caps, no less) when nobody ever mentioned the word boomerang. Does all their Wikilawyering using the Wiki shortcuts in ALL CAPS to guidelines and polices (e.g.- WP:SP, WP:NP, etc.). Knows a dozen different policy pages. Uses NPOV, MOS, UNDUE etc. in edit summaries (and in ALL CAPS no less). This is a WP:SPA editor focused on the election of Donald Trump and also on the Alien and Sedition Act, etc. (because Trump quoted it):
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proclamation_2525&diff=prev&oldid=694317785]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Checkingfax&diff=next&oldid=695139057]—‌Updated Ping time by 1 minute to refresh the Ping


 * Respectfully,  09:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , I provided 2 diffs for MBUSHIstory, 8 for NobleHumanBeing, and one for Kingshowman. That is what you requested as being satisfactory. Respectfully,  11:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Checkingfax provides diffs that my purported puppetmasters were "hostile", did numerous "reverts", were "argumentative" (and were verbose).
 * I was never hostile.
 * I never reverted an edit by another editor (assuming "revert" means to delete or undo someone else's edit).
 * I was never argumentative.
 * Re "verbose edit summaries" - I was taught that it the best editing style is to copy a quote of the content I add to an article, directly into the edit summary box, which fills it up. The other two editors have edit summaries that are verbose, not with copies of the content of their edits, but with hostile, argumentative, and insulting attacks on other editors they are reverting.
 * Checkingfax has yet to provide any evidence or reason that makes any sense for creating this SPI. Checkingfax had to have some reason in his/her mind when he/she accused me here. Some edit with a diff had to create that reason. It is inexplicable that Checkingfax has yet to reveal their reason, or reveal what edits of mine triggered that reason to be in Checkingfax's mind.
 * Resonding to Checkinfax's new accusations just made against me above -
 * All were made without any evidence or diffs, just like the SP accusation.
 * Checkingfax newly accuses me of being an "expert" at "Wikilaw". I am not. I do not even know what Wikilaw is. When I put the expression in the search box, it produces "Wikilawyering" as a shortcut. It seems to mean a person who the abuses rules, and uses misleading words and ommissions, to argue for something that is patently false. I have never done that. There is no evidence I ever did. Even I was, it would not be relevant to the SP accusation, since Checkinfax provided no evidence that my purported puppeteers are "experts" at "wikilaw".
 * Checkingfax newly accuses me of being an "expert" at "Wikijargon". I am not. I do not know what Wikijargon is, and I just looked it up. It redirecs to Wikipedia:Glossary. I just looked at the first 100 entries in that glossary, up to entry #100, "cruft". Of those 100, I was taught the meaning of "AGF", "article", "BOLD", "BLP", "contributions", "consensus", and "civil". That is 7 out of 100, or 7%. Knowing 7%, all basic terms for any editor, is not being an expert. Furthermore, even if knowing the 7% of the terms, all of them basic, qualifies me as an expert, this is irrelevant to the SP accusation, since there is no evidence that my purported puppeteers know the same 7%.
 * Checkingfax newly accuses me of being an "expert" on how to use "links to Wikipedia guideline and policy pages Talk pages". I was taught how to do that before starting to edit, as an essential editing tool that all editors need to know. What does that have to do with the SP accusation that I am controlled by the other two editors who are purportedly using me like a puppet?
 * Checkingfax newly accuses me of being an "expert" on "Pinging". I am not. I have heard the term "pinging" used before, outside of Wikipedia, but I do not know what it means. I just tried to read the WP:Pinging article, which redirects to Notifications. It says, "eight types of events can trigger an 'Alert' or 'New message' notification... when a message is left on your user talk page". I was taught to always leave a message on an editor's talk page when I mention that editor somewhere else. So if I am an "expert" at notifying other editors by leaving a message on their talk page, I am proud of it. It has nothing to do with an SP accusation, since Checkingfax did not provide any diffs that the purported puppeteers also left messages on talk pages of editors that they mention. Moreover, I only left messages on Checkingfax's talk page after he/she made this SPI request, so it cannot be evidence as to why the SP accusation was made in the first place.
 * Checkingfax newly accuses me of being an "expert" on "Edit requests". I am not. How am I supposed to respond with no diffs again? Wikipedia says, "Edit requests are requests for edits to be made to a page where editors cannot or should not make the proposed edits themselves." When I first started editing, the Donald Trump page was "semi-protected", and my edit I proposed on the talk page could not be made until my account got "autoconfirmed", but I don't know what that that means. The talk page section immediately above mine said "edit request", but this has nothing to do with me, or with an SP investigation even if I made that section header (I did not).
 * Checkingfax newly accuses me of being an "expert" on "creating Re-directs". I was taught not to start a new article for a new expression for an existing article, or on a subtopic, but to instead write "#Redirectexisting article". That is my only knowledge or redirects. I am not an expert, unless that is all that I know about redirect. If there is more to redirects, then I am not an expert. Checkingfax never provided diffs that my purported puppeteers ever made a redirect, so it is irrelevant to the SP accusation.
 * Checkingfax newly accuses me of having "got accused of 'digging a hole for themselves' and shot back that they had been accused of WP:BOOMERANG (in all caps, no less) when nobody ever mentioned the word boomerang." This is an intentionally false accusation.
 * When Checkinguser attacked me without reason and without evidence, and responded to my request for a reason and evidence by harassing me, such as by tarnishing my userpage, I opened two WP:ANI reports, one on personal attacks, another for the harassment. (Non-admin) User:Softlavender immediately closed my ANI in error, and she threatened that if I tried to report attacks and harassment by Checkingfax, Softlavender would retaliate with what she called a "boomerang", and referred me to read "WP:BOOMERANG" (using all caps herself, which I copied and pasted).here
 * User:WikiDan61 wrote "While it may not have been proper for Softlavender to close the ANI sections... (and) the original SPI investigation may have been spurious... If the SPI case was filed in error, than it would be quickly closed and done... I recommend that you just let the matter lie, and go on with your editing", to which I replied "OK", and marked the ANI with a "resolved" tag.here
 * Checkingfax or Softlavender, the only two editors I have ever had any kind of dispute, made an SP violating edit by logging off, becoming an anonymous IP, and threatening me with harm by a boomerang again."MBUSHIstory should step back before the boomerang arrives."
 * Not only did Checkingfax intentionally falsely write "nobody ever mentioned the word boomerang" as part of what is now appearing to be a clear and intentional abuse of an SPI request, but Checkingfax violated SP by using an anon IP to make the boomerang threat against me.
 * Checkingfax newly accuses me of "Wikilawyering". This is false. I never did any "wikilawyering", and Checkingfax provided no evidence for this new accusation.
 * Checkingfax newly accuses me of "Does all their Wikilawyering using the Wiki shortcuts in ALL CAPS to guidelines and polices (e.g.- WP:SP, WP:NP, etc.). Knows a dozen different policy pages. Uses NPOV, MOS, UNDUE etc. in edit summaries (and in ALL CAPS no less)." If reading the nutshell and/or first paragraph of basic policy pages, and basic guidelines and essays, counts as "knows" or being an "expert" on them, I have read (or was taught) more than a "dozen", more like 20-30. Checkingfax has not provided any evidence that the purported puppeteers used any obscure policies (other than the basics) that I also used, which would be evidenced of my being an SP. I do not even know anything other than the nutshells from basic policies (other than the ones arising from Checkingfax's accusations and Softlavender's threats).
 * As the only remotely relevant evidence relevant to an SP accusation, Checkingfax cites an instance of SHOUTING by one of the purported puppeteers, a hostile edit summary saying [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=675503824 "DELETING EDITS DUE TO PERSISTENT HOSTILITY. LATER GOONS"], accuses me of SHOUTING by using "ALL CAPS" when referencing policy pages. My all caps reference to policy pages comes from my copying and pasting the abbreviations from those pages, which are in all caps. Furthermore, my all caps references to those pages all came after Checkinguser's SP accusation, so cannot possibly be the reason or evidence for Checkinguser making the accusation in the first place.


 * I made 96 edits on Alien and Sedition Acts or articles now redirected to that article. I made 18 edits to the Donald Trump articles, each of which was related to his proposal based on the acts. All of my edits relate to the Alien and Sedition Acts. None of my purported puppeteers do so. All of my edits were dryly academic and entirely NPOV. None of my edits were controversial with anyone, none were disputed by another editor, none were altered by other editors, none reverted edits of other editors, none had SHOUTING in edit summaries, none had edit summaries or talk page edits that were in any way hostile or uncivil to other editors. None show any similarity to the edits of my purported puppeteers,


 * Checkinguser continues to refuse to provide any evidence that precedes his SP accusation, or an intelligible reason for accusing me. Checkinguser must have had some reason to accuse me of being an SP, and for refusing to withdraw the accusation when it was clear the accusation had no evidence and was false. Checkinguser, why did you accuse me of being an SP in the first place? MBUSHIstory (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

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


 * I deny these false allegations of User:Checkingfax. I have no idea who Checkingfax is, or why he or she would accuse me of anything.


 * The SP notice on my talk page, "The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MBUSHIstory, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence". But ''the only "evidence" presented here, of any kind, for anything, disruptive editing patterns supporting SP, or otherwise, is that Checkingfax wrote - "Donald Trump disruption mostly".


 * Assuming in good faith that Checkingfax had some evidence or reason for accusing me, I asked Checkingfax to state what evidence I am supposed to respond to and explain why the accusation was made, but [ Checkingfax ignored my request for evidence].


 * So the only possibility is to assume the two names of editors who I am supposed to be sockpuppet for, were disrupting the Donald Trump article, and I am supposed to show that I have not been disruptive. Otherwise, the accusation makes no sense. So I will respond to the only thing Checkingfax wrote, an accusation that I am disruptive on the Donald Trump article in the way that two other editors were disruptive. (Taking up my time to respond to an essentially-evidence free allegation is wrong, and some sanctions should be imposed on Checkingfax for making accusations withuout stating any real evidence even if there is some reason I am unaware of.)


 * , you need to provide evidence that they are the same person or this will get shut down without action. Also if you think that MBUSHIstory and Kingshowman are the same person this should have been filed at Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman as Kingshowman would be the sockmaster and MBUSHIstory would be the sockpuppet.  -- GB fan 13:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Checkingfax WP:NPA violations should be sanctioned
Policy WP:NPA says a personal attack includes "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki". Without warning, from out of the blue, User:Checkingfax accused me of violating WP:SP, which is a "serious accusation", and supplied no evidence, no diff or link, saying only "Donald Trump disruption mostly".

I had no history of disruptive editing at Donald Trump or anywhere else, none at all. No editor ever complained about any of my edits in any talk page, edit summary, or anywhere, not even remotely. I never had any confrontation or dispute with any editor - all talk page discussions were civil and led to consensus. I never reverted any editor's edit, even once. I first proposed all of my edits on talk pages, waited for consensus before making the edits, supported the edits with reliable sources, and all of my edits remain unchanged in the articles, even in controversial articles like Donald Trump. So no editor ever had any problem with any of my edits being disruptive - quote the opposite, all other editors appear to agree with my edits.

When I asked Checkingfax to provide evidence for the serious WP:SP accusation, to provide at least one diff that supported an allegation of WP:SP through "Donald Trump disruption mostly", Checkingfax ignored me, and provided no evidence.

Despite this, I continued to try to assume good faith on the part of Checkingfax, i.e., that he/she had a problem with at least one edit I made, which might be interpreted as "Donald Trump disruption mostly". So I spent many hours reviewing each and every edit I ever made, on the Donald Trump article or anywhere else. Furthermore, I reviewed all talk pages and edit summaries by others that occurred at anywhere near the time of my edits,, on all articles where I ever edited, trying to find any evidence of "Donald Trump disruption mostly", or that this supported an SP accusation, so I could respond to the accusation at the SP investigation page. I found nothing.

I then spent more hours reading the contribution history of the two editors who I was accused of being a WP:SP for, trying to find any similarity of any of my edits with theirs. I found nothing. Their editing style, interaction style with other editors at talk pages, edit summaries, language style, and especially edit content substance and implicit application of WP:WEIGHT is not even remotely similar to my own. The only possible response I could make to the evidence-free (and talk page dispute-free) accusations was this response I made on the investigation page.

It is the job of an editor making an accusation to provide at least one piece of evidence for the accusation. It is not the job of an accused editor to comb through each and every edit they made looking for evidence that there is not an SP violation, through each and every talk page discussion at or near that editor's edits, and each and every edit ever made by the purported SP puppeteers, doing an exhaustive search through thousands of edits to prove that there is no evidence for the SP accusation.

Before making a serious accusation of being disruptive in the style of two banned editors, Checkingfax (or some editor) should have first said something on some talk page or edit summary, that some edit of mine appeared to be disruptive.

Checkingfax appears to be a very experienced editor, who knows what evidence is, so the failure to provide evidence with the accusation is a clear violation of the quoted section of WP:NPA - "serious accusations require serious evidence", and possibly other Wikipedia behavioral policies and guidelines that I am not familiar with.

Checkingfax should be made to supply at least some diff or link, as to why Checkingfax singled me out to accuse of being an SP, and Checkingfax should be blocked until they do so.

When I asked Checkingfax for clarification and evidence, and Checkingfax ignored me, this showed that Chekingfax's violation WP:NPA's "serious accusations require serious evidence", was an intentional violation. This intentional violation of failing to provide evidence for a serious accusation should be addressed with some kind of sanction against Checkingfax, so that it never recurs.

After the CheckUser is done and the investigation is over, Checkingfax should be sanctioned. MBUSHIstory (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Checkingfax WP:Harrassment violations should be sanctioned

 * WP:Harrassment says, “Harassment can include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place.] Checkingfax never once made any direct communication suggesting that any of my edits were even remotely disruptive, or remotely similar to edits of the two editors Checkingfax accused me of being an SP for.
 * Checkingfax started a pattern of harassment by putting the same, evidence-free, accusation on my talk page TWICE.
 * Placing an accusation of being a WP:SP on a talk page may not be harassment, but putting the SAME accusation on the talk page TWOCE is the beginning of a pattern of harrassment.
 * After seeing that the SP accusation was made without any evidence, assuming Checkingfax's accusation was made in good faith, I asked Checkingfax for at least one diff, or any shred of evidence, for the SP accusations.
 * Instead of providing evidence, even a single diff, Checkingfax instead responded by tarnishing my userpage by adding TWO more IDENTICAL WP:SP accusations, the SAME evidence-free accusations already made TWICE on my talk page.
 * Adding the same (evidence-free) accusations to my userpage, which Checkingfax already made two times on my talk page, and as the only response to my request for evidence of Checkingfax’s serious SP accusations, is pure harassment. There is no other possible interpretation.
 * Checkingfax is a very experienced editor who knows that the appropriate response for a request for evidence of an SP accusation, is not to ignore therequest, and instead tarnish the accused editor's userpage. So '''aAfter the CheckUser is done and the investigation is over, Checkingfax should be sanctioned for this intentional harassment. MBUSHIstory (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I tagged NobleHumanBeing (NHB) as being a suspected sock of Kingshowman. I don't believe that MBUSHIstory is related to the other accounts, based on behavioral evidence. I still believe that NHB is a sock of Kingshowman, however. Doc   talk  06:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have opened another SPI here. Doc   talk  08:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  23:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I asked for diffs that show similarity between MBUSHIstory and Kingshowman, but none were provided. The evidence is very weak. I'm closing this with no action.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)