Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:09, 13 October 2010

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

Miradre

Miradre (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Miradre/Archive.

13 October 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Captain Occam (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• mikemikev (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• David.Kane (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by Aprock

The account Miradre was created on October 10, 2010, three days after Feragho (Captain Occam's roommate) was topic banned from R/I articles after months of being told to avoid the topic area , ,. Since that time Miradre has pursued editing articles under the umbrella of that topic ban in a manner consistent with WP:SPA and WP:CPUSH, making over 175 edits in the three days, all in R/I related articles. Miradre is clearly an experienced editor, citing policy, and carefully avoiding edit wars. Many of the edits have been pursuant to elevating the status of researchers like Richard Lynn and JP Rushton proponents of similar minority viewpoints with respect to race and intelligence, and minimising those with opposing views. There is a possibility that Miradre is a sock puppet (or a meat puppet) of one of the users above. For that reason, I am requesting a check-user. Diffs follow:

Miradre is an experienced editor:

• first edit mentions how merging is usually handled
• third edit updates complex ref:

The evidence below is presented to establish Miradre's WP:SPA and WP:CPUSH behavior. A short summary of the WP:SPA and WP:CPUSH behavior of the banned users can be found on the ArbComm case page: , , .

• uses excessive discussion to stall productive edits
• quote mines policy pages to misrepresent policy
• misinterprets WP:NRVE to say that all peer-reviewed publications are notable.
• uses false doubt to dispute well sourced info: , , ,
• synthesis, and selective presentation of primary source:
• more synthesis
• removal of material sourced to Flynn from Flynn Effect article ,
• sanitised criticism of Lynn: , ,
• expanded Rushton's review of Lynn's work from one sentence to three paragraphs: ,
• using synth to justify inclusion of tangential material , , for the purposes of elevating the status of Lynn's book.
• more synth, selectively summarising book
• far too much WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT: , , , , ,

It may be that Miradre is not one of the banned editors, however the tactics used are similar in style and nature to those used by the banned users. If this user does not turn out to be a sock puppet of one of the banned users, the user may be a meat puppet. and both have a history of recruiting meat puppets from off-wiki, and User:mikemikev has a history of using sock puppets. It's possible that this user is acting independent of the group of banned users.

It may be that a check-user or SPI is not the best way to handle this situation. If so, please advise. aprock (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to Captain Occam I appreciate Captain Occam's timely comments. His suggestion that there is a long list of users that could be using Miradre as a sock is apt. There are more than a dozen users who participated in one way or another in mediation and arbitration. Occam, and the others, were not notified because it's not clear if Miradre is a sock-puppet, a meat-puppet, or simply an uninvolved editor that shares the same WP:SPA behavior as the banned users, or as he has pointed out, one of other many parties involved in mediation and arbitration.

I acknowledge above that coming to SPI may not be the correct way to handle this. I come here at the suggestion of another user as to the best way to handle this situation.

With respect to Occam's history of recruiting like minded editors, User:Bpesta22 freely acknowledges that he was invited here by Captain Occam , after discussions on a blog indicated that they held similar views about race and intelligence. full thread. aprock (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Although I wasn’t notified of this SPI, since my name is on the list of suspected sockpuppets I’ll offer a comment here.

This SPI seems to have the same fundamental problem as the SPI that Mikemikev requested about Adhan24 in July. To quote the admin who denied a checkuser in that case, “CU is for finding socks of a sockmaster, not the other way around.” There may be some evidence of POV-pushing here, but from the fact that you’ve listed four different possible sockpuppeteers, it seems clear that there isn’t any behavioral evidence to link this account with a specific other user.

If Miradre is someone who’s previously edited Misplaced Pages and is coming back under a new account, a likely possibility is that they’re someone who previously quit these articles out of frustration rather than being banned. There are more people who have quit these articles for that reason than who have been banned—examples of this include Quizkajer, Legalleft, Varoon Arya, DistributiveJustice, Rvcx, and Bpesta22. There are a few of these people (such as Varoon Arya and Bpesta22) who I think can probably be ruled out as Miradre’s alterego just because his behavior has very little in common with theirs, but the point is that Miradre being one of these people is just as likely as him being a sockpuppet. It isn’t sockpuppetry to register a new account if there aren’t any sanctions against the old account, and both accounts aren’t active at the same time.

I should also point out that the claim that I have “a history of recruiting meat puppets from off-wiki” is an example of a claim about me that’s been made repeatedly by a few users, but that has never been supported by any evidence. For example, it was not mentioned in the finding of fact about me in the race and intelligence arbitration case. But anyway, what really matters here is that I haven’t used any sockpuppet accounts, and I’m pretty confident that Ferahgo hasn’t either. I don’t know whether or not Mikemikev or David.Kane have, but I’m familiar enough with both of their behavior that I’m pretty sure Miradre also isn’t either of them. So admins can run a checkuser if they like—it won’t turn up anything about me, and I’m pretty sure it won’t turn up anything at all.

If checkuser is going to be used here, admins should keep in mind that since Ferahgo and I go online from the same network, there will be some overlap in the IP addresses used by my account and hers (this is why my topic ban was eventually extended to her). But there won’t be any between either of our accounts and the suspected sockpuppet. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Mierde

No, I am not one of those listed above by aprock. Neither does I know them in any way. I have not in any way participated in their arbitration case of which I was unaware.

The above points are misleading. I have introduced criticism and arguments for from peer-reviewed studies from both sides on the issue including very harsh criticism of the methodology and genetic explanation proposed in the book "IQ and Global Inequality" by Lynn and Vanhanen.

I have also added many sources for material lacking such. When I have removed/changed material it has been carefully explained on the talk page or edit summaries. This has typically been due to lacking sources, poor sources (blogs by non-scholars and and similar problems), or misrepresentation of the sources. This can be seen by checking my edit commentaries and talk page comments.

The locus of the dispute is regarding material from peer-reviewed studies which Aprock and some others do not want to include in the articles relating to national IQs and how they are changing. Most notable are these deletions of peer-reviewed material:

In order to avoid including this material they use dubious argument such as claiming that peer-reviewed articles as primary sources should not be allowed when almost every science article in Misplaced Pages have peer-reviewed articles as sources. Or that notability is lacking when the articles or books have been cited by many peer-reviewed articles. Similarly, it is also objected to mentioning that national IQ scores have been used by a large number of other scientists in their own studies showing at least some academic acceptance.

I certainly do not fulfill the essential criteria for the essay WP:CRUSH since I almost exclusively use peer-reviewed articles as sources for my statements. Neither do I edit war. I do fulfill the criteria of civility. If anything I would say that it may be others who is doing the CRUSH by refusing to accept peer-reviewed material not fitting their own POV.

As noted, I am all for including valid arguments and criticisms from both sides. I have already demonstrated that. However, I do object to excluding such material.Miradre (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to Aprock

I've explained this issue before, including specifically in response to you. The only thing that Bpesta22 indicated in the thread where I encountered on him Scienceblogs was that he was a cognitive psychologist, and that he thought IQ was a valid measure of mental ability. He didn't mention his opinion about race there at all, and I did not know what his opinion was about race until after inviting him here. I've even linked to the Scienceblogs thread in which this was discussed, so that other people could verify that what I was saying about it was correct. The race and intelligence article was tagged as needing attention from an expert, and no one has yet explained how my inviting the first expert I encountered to participate in this article was any different from what this tag is specifically requesting people to do.

For you to try and justify your suspicion of sockpuppetry by claiming that this was an example of me deliberately "recruiting like minded editors" from off-Wiki, despite having the problem with this claim pointed out to you multiple times, seems very disingenuous. And in the absence of this or any other evidence linking Miradre with a specific other user, the justification for an SPI about him seems rather flimsy. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases for pre-CheckUser review
• SPI cases requesting a checkuser