Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MarshallKe/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | MarshallKe


MarshallKe

31 July 2022

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

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. [1], [2], [3], [4]), to full-throttle wikilawyering (e.g. [5], [6]), 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: [7]).

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 Wikipedia. [8] Versus BQ: By the way, I actually agree with you generally ideologically, but I don't believe ideology should bias editing. [9]. (Of course MK’s use of “quackery” there, part of BQ’s username, is one more anecdotal connection –– see BQ's comment here: [10].)

Compare also MK’s extensive complaint here: [11] with BQ’s here: [12] (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): [13] versus I kindly ask that you remember to assume good faith (BQ to JBL) [14]. This may then be escalated to full-on gaslighting as with this from MK to jps [15] and this from BQ to myself [16].

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. [17]), and BQ has also edited on this narrow topic ([18]). See also e.g. edits related to testosterone: [19] (MK) versus [20] (BQ). There is also a shared focus on other biochemical compounds, e.g. MK’s interest in Glucosamine ( [21], [22], [23]), Benzoquinone ([24], [25]) and Quercetin ([26] [27], [28]) versus BQ’s interest in Chromatin ([29], [30], [31]).

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 [32] and one of their primary opponents [33]. 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: [34]. There, Girth Summit stated that they saw nothing to indicate use of proxies. Indeed, BQ has dared us to run CU [35]. 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)[reply]

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 [36]. 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I read (literally) all of Wikipedia'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)[reply]
  • 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: [37]
  • 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 Wikipedia for many years. It's not that hard to use.
  • My Google search history since starting to edit Wikipedia looks like this: [38]
  • 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 [39]) is because I saw FobTown use it then I searched it. [40]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • I saw this after adding the most recent Wikipedia: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)[reply]
    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 [41] (for context, the full discussion) and two instances where they removed content for violating MEDRS [42], [43]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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 [44]) just 7 days after getting a Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Yup. Note the similarity with MK's 3RR/N complaint against Alexbrn: [45] (e.g. MK's aware of edit warring policy versus BQ's familiar with 3RR policies). Generalrelative (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently at a psychology conference where one of the speakers specifically pointed out how the Spearman's hypothesis article at Wikipedia 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)[reply]

It is not the fact that BQ edited the article on Spearman's hypothesis which is at issue here. It is their manner of editing which suggests an experienced editor –– and indeed, as I have argued, if one carefully examines the distinctive rhetorical style and other behavioral clues present in the diffs, that they are clearly MK editing from an alternate account. Generalrelative (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferahgo the Assassin out of an abundance of caution, I need to ask you not to try to figure out who he or she is IRL. And more specifically, not to make that information public should you discover it, per WP:OUTING. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this investigation. I'll try to provide any information you guys want. MarshallKe (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarshallKe: Maybe you could start by explaining how you "just noticed" this report after a month of inactivity? You don't appear to have taken an interest in SPI before. Generalrelative (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalrelative: I pinged them in my comment on this page here. In SPI, one always needs to take into account that there are much more unknown factors and that much more happens by coincidence than one is wont to suspect. Evidence needs to be very tight and incontrovertible. If there is no such evidence, better to wait it out. Sockpuppets always get caught at some point, often sooner than later. Likewise, disruptive users have a way of working themselves out of this project. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apaugasma: Aha, okay. I've struck my question. That said, I obviously believe that I have presented strong evidence above. One simply needs to take the time to work through it, and we are waiting for someone to do so. Generalrelative (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything at all that I or @BooleanQuackery can do or provide that would convince you you're wrong? A Zoom meeting, perhaps (assuming Boolean hasn't vanished - I do suspect them to possibly be an alt account of somebody else)? Not that I would necessarily put forth that much effort to disprove a random person's conspiracy theory. I know that I don't have to participate in this discussion. I'm just find it mildly interesting. As for my absence, I just haven't been that interested in editing Wikipedia lately. It's just not a civil place and life's too short. MarshallKe (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked over this, I believe MarshallKe and BooleanQuackery are the same user. I can't type up why I think this now as I am about to watch Prey (2022 film) but I will come on here after and give my take on this with a few diffs. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having spent a few hours looking at this I will retract my claim that MarshallKe and BooleanQuackery are the same user. I agree with Generalrelative the rhetoric is similar but I am seeing a lot of other differences having looked at this deeper.

On talk pages MarshallKe and BooleanQuackery both use a very different formatting layout style. I understand that a good sock would plan to do that but usually there are clues they give away, I am seeing too many differences here. MarshallKe is an editor that got into trouble with experienced medical users (Alexbrn, Zefr) for edit-warring on medicine and alternative medicine articles such as Lavender oil, shiatsu, Calcium supplement etc. If you check their formatting style they do not use loads of bullet points like BooleanQuackery they also type out links in full rather than using short-links. A typical MarshallKe edit on talk-pages is to use green writing or green quote boxes, BooleanQuackery never does that. If you check the calcium supplement article talk-page you can see a typical example of MarshallKe's edit formatting [46] with green quote boxes, this user has done this many times on Wikipedia going back years, another example on the kombuchu talk-page [47] and the Quercetin talk page [48].

If you look at MarshallKe's user-page [49] you can see they have an interest in editing medicine and supplement related articles, this does not match BooleanQuackery. Also MarshallKe has taken interest in improving paranormal related articles. For example, their interest in Rain of animals [50], not a mainstream topic. BooleanQuackery is a user that almost has an an entire editing history built around editing Heritability of IQ, intelligence or race articles. MarshallKe seems to have a lot of editing interests such as commenting about Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. (film) [51] as seen on their user-page they have interest in Robert Anton Wilson and improving a draft for Bernadro Kastrup [52] a spiritual writer. None of this matches BooleanQuackery's sole interest in editing controversial IQ, race and sex articles.

BooleanQuackery has quite a unique formatting style in that this user will often put up lots of bullet points and when linking to weblinks will often put "here" or "deleted". Examples of the former on the stereotype threat talk-page [53] and the Biosocial criminology talk-page [54]. MarshallKe does not do this.

Having looked over this for quite a while this morning (I have looked at the history of a lot of these controversial intelligence and race articles that BooleanQuackery has edited), I believe BooleanQuackery is a sock-puppet of the banned user Captain Occam [55]. Captain Occam was a eugenicist/race "realist" who defended racialist pseudoscience on Wikipedia since his very first edits [56]. Similar to BooleanQuackery this user used excessive bullet points [57] on many talk-pages and when linking to articles would usually type "here". Both have edited many of the same articles. Captain Ocamm's writing style appears to match BooleanQuackery [58]. Captain Occam only edited two topic areas on Wikipedia race and intelligence and creation stories/intelligent design. BooleanQuackery has mostly edited articles related to intelligence but also a few creationist/creation story ones [59], complaining here about a creation story [60]

If you check BooleanQuackery's long rant on the Spearman's hypothesis talk-page [61] it reads to me as Captain Occam's disjointed writing style [62] but one would have to sit for hours and hours comparing the accounts. I have spent a while looking at this and that is my suspicion. I think we all agree that BooleanQuackery is not a new user and is a sock-puppet of a user associated with race and intelligence pseudoscience. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  • 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)[reply]
  • MarshallKe and BooleanQuackery are ostensibly   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)[reply]
  • Some behavioural cues suggest that BooleanQuackery might not be a new user. However, that is not a policy violation on its own. So the key question is whether there is enough evidence linking BooleanQuackery to MarshallKe or Captain Occam. Fringe theories are a hot topic, so it's easy to find multiple users with shared positions, interests, and attitudes. Given the editing area and the CheckUser results, I think the behavioural evidence presented here is not compelling enough. If anyone considers reopening this in the future, take note that it would require substantially better evidence.   Closing without action. MarioGom (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MarshallKe/Archive&oldid=1110804106"