Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/MarshallKe - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ferahgo the Assassin (talk | contribs) at 21:27, 2 August 2022 (→Comments by other users). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:27, 2 August 2022 by Ferahgo the Assassin (talk | contribs) (→Comments by other users)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

MarshallKe

MarshallKe (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/MarshallKe/Archive.


31 July 2022

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

MarshallKe last edited on July 7th and the BooleanQuackery account was created two weeks later. Many things about the BQ account suggest an experienced editor, from extensive revisions of controversial articles (e.g. , , , ), to full-throttle wikilawyering (e.g. , ), to the user page created one day after their account with “I like biology!”

Several others have noted that this is clearly not a new user (here and here), but when asked directly about it BQ implicitly denied being experienced (asked if they consider themselves to be "brand new" they said you can determine yourself and linked to their one-week-old user talk page: ).

Rhetorically and stylistically, there is a lot of overlap between the two accounts. Compare e.g. MK: If it helps you relax, I believe chiropractic is quackery, though I try to keep my personal beliefs from influencing my editing on Misplaced Pages. Versus BQ: By the way, I actually agree with you generally ideologically, but I don't believe ideology should bias editing. . (Of course MK’s use of “quackery” there, part of BQ’s username, is one more anecdotal connection –– see BQ's comment here: .)

Compare also MK’s extensive complaint here: with BQ’s here: (note the similar formatting using "#").

Both accounts seem prone to posting condescending remarks on the talk pages of experienced users, e.g. I want to remind you of WP:ASPERSIONS (MK to jps): versus I kindly ask that you remember to assume good faith (BQ to JBL) . This may then be escalated to full-on gaslighting as with this from MK to jps and this from BQ to myself .

I could go on and on about rhetoric and style but would like to keep this report from being crazy long. They are both prolific accounts. More upon request.

In terms of content, there are no actual page overlaps beyond FT/N and 3RR/N. A broad thematic overlap however is their shared interest in biology and medicine. In particular, MK was heavily invested in the intersection of nutrition and alternative medicine (see e.g. ), and BQ has also edited on this narrow topic (). See also e.g. edits related to testosterone: (MK) versus (BQ). There is also a shared focus on other biochemical compounds, e.g. MK’s interest in Glucosamine ( , , ), Benzoquinone (, ) and Quercetin ( , ) versus BQ’s interest in Chromatin (, , ).

MarshallKe got quite a bit of notoriety among the FT/N crowd for perceived hectoring behavior, especially surrounding a long discussion they started at Teahouse. This ultimately culminated in an AE warning, followed up by a 72-hour block for WP:POINT, WP:FORUM, WP:HARASS, WP:TROLL and especially WP:TANTRUM. MarshallKe appears to have taken this as an insult, lashing out at the blocking admin and one of their primary opponents . I believe that this background is more than sufficient to establish that MK has a motive to avoid scrutiny, especially if they are continuing to behave in such a provocative manner.

Note that a different SPI on BQ was filed a few days ago by Qiushufang, suggesting that this was perhaps a sock of FobTown, which was closed without action: . There, Girth Summit stated that they saw nothing to indicate use of proxies. Indeed, BQ has dared us to run CU . Not sure what all this might indicate, but I believe that 1) CU couldn’t hurt here, and 2) even without a CU match the behavioral evidence indicates a DUCK.

As always, thank you for your time and engagement. Generalrelative (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks RoySmith. If anyone would like to see more stylistic and rhetorical comparisons, please just let me know. One correction to the above: I stated that MarshallKe had gained notoriety for a post on Teahouse, but it was Village pump . On that note, compare

The problem that I have observed is that, using the dandelion example again, after we have determined that the dandelion cancer cure is a disproven fringe viewpoint, some editors begin to make edits in disregard to WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV in order to make absolutely sure the article says dandelions are bad and you should never use them for anything, ever. For example, if a reliable mainstream source comes along that says dandelions are edible and contain Vitamin A and potassium, an editor may decide to delete those claims from the article to make absolutely sure that Misplaced Pages isn't one of those dirty fringe believers in the dandelion cancer cure. Editors begin to use the status of a viewpoint as mainstream or fringe as the basis for picking sources and facts to include in the article, rather than using mainstream sources and facts to determine what views are fringe. Standards are lowered for sources that say the subject is "bad", and sources that might even hint that there might be something good about the subject are held to the highest standards possible, or sometimes, simply removed because the article was "better before", with no intent to discuss.

(MK in their initial post on Village pump) with

You have been frequently engaged in discussions about the reliability of sources that substantially meet the criteria for reliable sources. There is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources, to a point. But there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources, especially when multiple sources are being questioned in this manner. This may take the form of arguing about the number of or validity of the information cited by the sources. The danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support a particular desired viewpoint. In my view, it appears you have a highly flexible policy interpretation, seeming to be ultimately driven by the motivation to deliver your message while obscuring or eliminating any competing messages. For example, perhaps someone thinks randomized controlled trials (or meta-analyses, reviews, and various other types of studies) are the gold standard when they produce the result you agree with, but are highly dubious, ghostwritten industry shills, subject to disqualifying publication bias when they don't.

(BQ in their long complaint on my talk page). Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I read (literally) all of Misplaced Pages's conduct and content policies after a couple of my early edits were reverted, so I could make sure I edited correctly next time. I've also read a bunch of essays and guidelines, usually from seeing them linked in edit descriptions or discussions then clicking on related ones at the bottom of the pages. If you check my contributions, you'll see I make frequent simple mistakes or otherwise noob edits, like:

  • I frequently forget to sign my comments with BooleanQuackery (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't know how/forgot how to do links and text at the same time on source mode, so I always have one of these things instead:
  • I don't know how to add a citation in source mode (unless I copy and paste the source) so all of my edits where I add sources are in visual editing mode
  • Something about the way I add citations often makes the bot fix them for errors, which seems to happen to me more than other users.
  • I am technologically competent. I've been reading Misplaced Pages for many years. It's not that hard to use.
  • My Google search history since starting to edit Misplaced Pages looks like this:
  • I can provide way more screenshots upon request. Other (embarrassingly verbatim) examples include "can you update date on a template message wikiepdia" and "ANEW notive iwkipedia."
  • My knowledge of COATTAILS (noted here ) is because I saw FobTown use it then I searched it.
  • This has limited relevance to CU, but politely reminding editors of policies that they are in violation of a policy is neither gaslighting nor condescending.

BooleanQuackery (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Content added before the close but deleted by Generalrelative:

  • It is very easy to google what a CU is.
  • It is also very easy to find this page when users publicly discussed that they were going to post about me here right before they did.

BooleanQuackery (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  • I saw this after adding the most recent Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial filing. I have interacted a few times with MarshallKe, and I'm very sure they would never !vote like this. It's the complete and utter opposite of what MarshallKe was on about at their Village Pump post (with which, by the way, I largely agree), or the whole attitude that lead to their 72h block. I'm not saying that BooleanQuackery's extremely fast learning curve isn't somewhat suspicious (sorry to those who don't like that approach, but I always find that suspicious), but unless that Astrology RfC !vote was a pure attempt at deception, they're not MarshallKe. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    Apaugasma: I am afraid that this remark mischaracterizes MarshallKe's behavior pattern. You seem to be saying that MK would never have !voted to include the "pseudoscience" designation for astrology –– presumably because they were such a vociferous opponent of the anti-fringe crowd? But just in MK's most recent 50 edits I found this arguing that parapsychology be described as pseudoscience (for context, the full discussion) and two instances where they removed content for violating MEDRS , . MK's pattern of behavior was often disruptive but their position on pseudoscience was at least somewhat nuanced, and there is no dissonance at all between it and BQ's !vote. Generalrelative (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, MK's stance on pseudoscience & WP is nuanced. In fact, I'm often in agreement with them on this topic, and they with me. But that's also why I'm really quite sure that they would never !vote the way BQ did in the astrology RfC (full discussion). The real MK would at the very least in some way reply to my extensive arguments in that RfC and the one immediately preceding it. Unless it's a conscious attempt at deception, that is, but I just don't find that credible. That said, BQ still reeks sock. Fringe wars are old on WP, so the chance of BQ being someone else 'returning' isn't negligible. Maybe BQ's eagerness for CU, whether they're a sock or not, is simply because they know they're not MK? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    Hmm, all I'll say is that perhaps your feelings about that particular RfC may be influencing your judgment here (if you thought of MK as an ally but BQ voted differently than you would've liked). I won't argue the point further though. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Since I was notified of this CU, I must say that this is an extremely unusual talk page edit to make as a new user. The amount of familiarity with wiki mechanisms and acronyms as well as the offloading of WP policies is not something you can gain just by looking at wiki pages prior to editing or within a few days as a new user. Their specific interests, rate of editing, and eagerness for a CU on their talk page all point to an expectation that their contention with other users was a predetermined outcome. Qiushufang (talk)

Another example of strange behavior by a supposedly new user was BQ's opening a meticulously formatted complaint against me at WP:AN/EW (see ) just 7 days after getting a Misplaced Pages account. The complaint got nowhere, but (like the lengthy message on Generalrelative's talk-page) was a type of harassment. I don't think a formal WP:AN/EW posting is normally the first thing a disgruntled noob thinks of. NightHeron (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Yup. Note the similarity with MK's 3RR/N complaint against Alexbrn: (e.g. MK's aware of edit warring policy versus BQ's familiar with 3RR policies). Generalrelative (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I was recently at a psychology conference where one of the speakers specifically pointed out how the Spearman's hypothesis article at Misplaced Pages was in a sorry state. I noticed BQ editing that article almost right away, though I have no idea who he is IRL. I imagine that could explain why he suddenly started editing in this area. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I find it most impressive that BooleanQuackery found this SPI in the first place, let alone know what CU is. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • MarshallKe and BooleanQuackery are ostensibly Red X Unrelated. I say ostensibly because their eagerness for us to run CU makes me suspect they knew this would be the case based on something they had done themselves. My suggestion is to ignore the CU results and figure this out on behavior alone. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/MarshallKe Add topic