Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fq90/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Fq90

20 January 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

The brand new user Fq90 has focused exclusively on Race and intelligence since reaching the required autoconfirmed status: [1]. Their narrow focus on shoehorning a set of genetic studies into the topic is very, very similar to a set of IP ranges whose disruptive behavior was the proximate cause for the R&I talk page being indefinitely semi-protected back in December (see this ANI complaint). Central to that disruptive behavior was a profoundly racist comment which has since been revdelled ([2], see the ANI complaint) which resulted in that IP being temporarily blocked. My impression is that this comment was outrageous enough to merit an indef block had it come from a registered account.

Note that all of the IP addresses listed here geolocate to the same city in Colombia as the offending IP, and all share the same narrow topical focus as well as certain linguistic and argumentative quirks, e.g. constantly renegotiating after editors shoot down their arguments and prefacing such renegotiations with "Ok...". These IPs are all clearly the same person, and when confronted about this they did not deny it: [3]

So the question remains: is Fq90 the same person as well and are they using their new account to evade accountability for their past racist comment?

First, are they the same person?

In terms of content, compare especially [4] (IP) with [5] (Fq90). Compare also [6] (IP) with [7] (Fq90, again almost verbatim in places), and [8] (IP) with [9] (Fq90).

In terms of the rhetorical quirk of renegotiating statements beginning with "Ok...", compare [10][11][12] (IPs) with [13] (Fq90)

And of course the standard you want to hide this information from the public accusation common to all FRINGE topics. Compare [14] (IP) with [15] (Rq90).

Finally, is this just an innocent case of an IP registering an account? Not if outright deception is involved. I asked the new account about this directly and their answer was to outright deny any connection to the IPs in question: [16].

Looks like a DUCK to me for avoiding scrutiny / misusing a clean start. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More content overlap in recent talk page activity: [17] (IP) versus [18] (Fq90, see final sentence). Generalrelative (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two more examples of the "Ok..." renegotiation style from today (Fq90 continuing to bludgeon discussion over the same "polygenic scores" content): [19][20]. Generalrelative (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

"And of course the standard you want to hide this information from the public accusation common to all FRINGE topics."

Lying that it's "fringe" is how you hide it. The only evidence you have for this is a vote among Wikipedia editors, not a literature survey. Houndstooth Socks (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IPv6 range and Fq90 both edited St Clare's, Oxford this month.

To GR's point about deception, I'd add that this can't be a case of innocent account registration, as two parts of WP:ILLEGIT are implicated: 'Creating an illusion of support' and 'Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts', both at Talk:Race and intelligence. Firefangledfeathers 05:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • Generalrelative's diffs do a good job of showing that the IP and Fq90 have identical POVs, including focus on the same specific arguments and pieces of evidence. That isn't necessarily dispositive on its own—if one person with a POV sees an argument as good, others might flock to it—but four additional considerations drive me to the conclusion that this is the same person: 1) The identical editing style—almost exclusively commenting on talkpages, never using edit summaries. 2) The timing of the account's creation, after the indef semi of the talkpage. 3) The "Ok" quirk noted by GR. 4) The shared interest in a school far removed from their other edits or their geolocation, as noted by Firefangledfeathers. I do not see a realistic likelihood of this confluence of factors being a coincidence.
    That brings us to the question of whether SOCK has been violated here. I disagree that this is manipulating consensus as FFF says, since there's no temporal overlap, and historically some leeway has been granted to editors shifting from IP to accounts. However, given that their behavior on this talkpage had already been the subject of an AN/I thread, I do think this qualifies as evading scrutiny. Now, no editor should ever be forced to divulge their IP, and had they simply refused to answer GR's query, I would have been inclined to close this with a pblock from the talkpage, which I think is the most reasonable extension of the community's decision to semi the talkpage against the same editor. But outright deception is different, and crosses this over to abusive socking. Pink clock Awaiting administrative action: Please block Fq90 indefinitely for socking. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done. Marking case for close. Sro23 (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18 March 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This user's very first edit was a talk page post [21] which was immediately recognizable as Fq90 due to both the substance and tone of their writing: continuing Fq90's obsession with including a paragraph on how "polygenic scores" supposedly provide evidence for a genetic link between race and intelligence. Compare with e.g. this from Fq90 [22] (same argument, similar language, both cite Russell Warne's recent article "Between-Group Mean Differences in Intelligence in the United States Are >0% Genetically Caused: Five Converging Lines of Evidence"). LucaCapobianco has since attempted to edit war similar content into the article Race and intelligence [23][24] (immediately after reaching the required autoconfirmed status, just as Fq90 did), and continued Fq90's pattern of talk page argumentation at Talk:Race and intelligence#Discussion of Polygenic Scores, even going so far as to explicitly reference my own comments to Fq90 that this user would have needed to open up a hatted discussion to read [25].

Aside from the overall substance and tone, which is clearly very similar to Fq90 (the similarity was obvious enough for MrOllie to revert LucaCapobianco's initial comment as "obvious block evasion" [26]), there is the idiosyncratic use of the word "guys" here [27] versus here [28].

Compare also this comment by one of the Fq90 IPs on supposed genetic advantages in intelligence of Jews [29] with this edit to the same effect by LucaCapobianco [30]. The new account has also edited on a number of Judaism-related pages, e.g. [31][32][33], and Fq90 claimed a strong identification with this identity: Long and proud, 17 generations, Sephardic Jewish pedigree, on my mother's side, going back at least until the early 1400s.[34]. (I note this last point simply to show one more point of commonality; obviously lots of editors show interest in Judaism-related topics and/or are Jewish.)

Happy to answer any questions if necessary. Generalrelative (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC) Generalrelative (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

17 May 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Did the bare minimum to get autoconfirmed, then more additions of material about polygenic scores at Race and intelligence. Note similar phrasing: Confirmed sock: [35] New user: [36]. Same kind of talk page trolling as well. MrOllie (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Since it appears that this will hinge on behavioral evidence, compare the way Josiahxagora opened their recent talk page intervention: Ok guys... [37] with previously documented idiosyncrasies of Fq90. Frequently beginning statements with Ok: [38][39][40][41]. Referring to talk page community as guys: [42][43][44]. Compare also you can try to suppress them and hide them as long as you want (Josiahxagora) [45] with Fq90's characteristic accusation of the same, e.g. you guys want to suppress and hide this information (Fq90 IP sock) [46]. Looks like a DUCK to me. Generalrelative (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same redirect link, instead of using the actual article link, "Polygenic score": Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • They're promoting some of the same studies, and have a similar tone on the talkpage, but the ways the studies are characterized in the two diffs gives me a modicum of hesitation, enough that I'd like to hear what CU has to say. CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The raw CU data says  Possible. Some aspects of the data are a good match, other aspects are wildly incongruent, but there's significant indication of proxy use which could explain the differences, ao maybe more like  Inconclusive  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I wasn't convinced before, GR and FFF's evidence is definitely persuasive. I'd tag this as proven if not for the ambiguous CU results; let's call this suspected, but the kind of "suspected" that waggles its eyebrows at you and mouths "no, really".  Blocked and tagged. Closing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 14:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08 August 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Like previous Fq90 socks, TheHaberProcess did the exact minimum (10 edits) in order to be able to edit Race and intelligence and comment on Talk:Race and intelligence, and since then has done nothing else (cf. previous socks Josiahxagora [47] and LucaCapobianco [48]). Same focus on supposed Jewish advantages in intelligence (cf. e.g. [49], [50], [51], [52] by TheHaberProcess with e.g. [53] by Fq90 –– or more specifically citing Steven Pinker on the matter: TheHaberProcess [54] versus sock LucaCapobianco [55]). Same rhetorical ticks as well, esp. referring to the talk page community as "guys" [56] versus [57], [58], [59]. This last one seems to be almost a dead giveaway for this sockmaster. CU might be useful here but I believe that behavioral evidence alone should be enough in this case, as it was in the last. More detailed analysis upon request. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't recognize the significance of "TheHaberProcess" vis-a-vis Jewish history, Fritz Haber was a chemist whose work led to Zyklon B, which was used in the gas chambers during the Holocaust. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Haber was a complicated figure. He was Jewish himself, and invented not only Zyklon B but also the Haber process for synthesizing ammonia from atmospheric nitrogen. Definitely consistent with Fq90's fascination with Jewish genius, as is The HaberProcess's edits to the pages of other Jewish geniuses Spinoza [60] and von Neumann [61]. Cf. Fq90 sock LucaCapobianco's edits to e.g. Steven Pinker [62], Georg Cantor [63], Sephardi Jews [64] and List of South-East European Jews [65]. Generalrelative (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

07 September 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same obsessive focus on polygenic scores, Jewish IQ, and Generalrelative. Their first edit was to post a classic Fq90 rant on GR's user talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP is in the same /40 that has been disrupting the R&I topic area for so long. Ohcanada123 re-signed a comment from the IP/64 in this edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

There is also this edit flogging the same old stuff at Polygenic score from another IP in same the /64 block. - MrOllie (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • I'm convinced the most of that /40 is Fq90 (see also the archive), and that Ohcanada is the same person.  Range blocked blocked for a month, though that will likely need extending down the line. Account  Blocked and tagged. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07 October 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

IP 191.106.134.79 essentially admits to being Fq90 on the talk page of History of the race and intelligence controversy: Dont bother guys, this isnt about wikipedia policy, it is about their personal feud with me where they will not admit those polygenic scores even exist. I dunno who put these weirdos in charge but surely there must be someone above them in the pecking order we can complain to about this blatant dishonesty [66]. Note the telltale use of "guys" present in previous reports on Fq90 and the same geolocation in Colombia as all the previous Fq90 IP socks. IP 186.81.100.63, which also shares the same geoloction, then appeared to edit war over the same "polygenic scores" content about which Fq90 is obsessed [67]. These two IPs are clearly the same individual as Fq90, who apparently feels free to continue disrupting the race and intelligence topic area despite their block. Generalrelative (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

30 January 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Another new user attempting to add information on polygenetic scores to Race and intelligence - the main focus of Fq90's socks. MrOllie (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Polygenic", but I'm otherwise in agreement with MrOllie. They also gamed their way to autoconfirmed and then immediately started editing the semi-protected Race and intelligence and its talk page, which prior socks have done. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

02 February 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

IP showed up on my talk page less than three days after Fq90's most recent sockpuppetry block, making precisely the same accusation [68] as a previous Fq90 sock [69]. Both comment in reply to the same old thread on my talk page, and both start by making reference to the same "polygenic scores" argument that Fq90 has been flogging since forever (the new IP refers to "SNPs", i.e. "Single-nucleotide polymorphisms", a closely related concept referring to the same issue in this context). Then both frame their accusations specifically in terms of "intellectual dishonesty". Compare the previous sock's statement

While they are doing it with the best of intentions (protecting marginalized groups etc.), it is a shame that they are so intellectually dishonest in the way they go about it.

with the new IP's

It gave me the impression that you are a very intellectually dishonest person.... Why would you want to contribute to the current climate of denial and "fact-resistance" in western society? Do you perhaps think that the "noble" ends justify the means?

Looks like a WP:DUCK to me. Generalrelative (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FFF, yeah I saw that too. I'm not super savvy about proxy use, but saw that in the previous case checkuser had been inconclusive for that reason. Just on the weight of behavioral evidence though (commenting on the same old user talk page thread, referencing the same polygenic scores issue, using the same rhetoric of "intellectual dishonesty" versus "best of intentions" / "noble ends" –– not to mention that this follows right on the heels of my interactions with Fq90's most recent sock) I'd be extremely surprised to learn that this was anyone other than Fq90. Generalrelative (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And now the new IP has filed an edit request at RPP attempting to push mention of FRINGE psychologist Russel Warne and his article "Between-Group Mean Differences in Intelligence in the United States Are >0% Genetically Caused" onto the Race and intelligence page: [70]. This article by Warne is also a favorite source for Fq90 and their socks: [71][72][73][74][75]. Just in case we needed more behavioral evidence. Generalrelative (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • Showing up at GR's page in the first hour of editing to complain about a race/intelligence matter is very ducky, but I'm not 100% sure it's Fq90. All the identified sock IPs have been Colombia based, and this one is Sweden. It could be a proxy; all I know to use is the linked proxy check tool and it says its not being maintained. An archive search turns up Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive for Sweden-based IPs with an interest in race/intelligence. Not too familiar with their pattern. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Compelling behavior evidence from GR for sure. I hoped only to flag the other option, especially in case we get future disruption from Sweden-based IPs. I'm also hoping one of the SPI experts will say "proxy check, that worthless old shite? here's the tool you should be using!" Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

21 December 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Like several other Fq90 socks, CuriousCrafter123 made precisely 10 edits to qualify as auto-confirmed and then proceeded to make all their subsequent edits bludgeoning at Race and intelligence. Compare this pattern with previous socks TheHaberProcess, Josiahxagora, and LucaCapobianco, as well as sockmaster Fq90. Fq90's pet topics are Jewish intelligence and polygenic scores, and the current account is laser-focused on the former.

Compare also their latest comment invoking SYNTHNOT with this from previous Fq90 sock ETDS554.

There is also the odd coincidence that Fq90's IP socks –– though located in Colombia –– were for a time tag-teaming with an IP operating from Milan (see e.g. this) while CuriousCrafter123's initial 10 edits were to the article Milan. (Somehow the IP in the above-linked discussion escaped blocking but it's Fq90; see this).

CU will be stale here, but I've been advised to ping RoySmith for relevant expertise.

Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

02 March 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

IP 191.111.50.57 has the same geolocation as previous Fq90 IP socks (Cali, Colombia, cf. e.g. [76][77][78], confirmed in initial case, 20 January 2022), same pattern of trying to shoehorn information about polygenic scores into the race and intelligence topic area. For anyone familiar with the LTA history here, even this single edit is a quacking DUCK: [79].

For anyone not yet familiar, compare this edit:

There is no evidence differences in IQ between blacks and whites are the result of natural selection.<ref name>{{Cite journal |last=Bird |first=Kevin |date=2021 |title=No support for the hereditarian hypothesis of the Black-White achievement gap using polygenic scores and tests for divergent selection}}

with e.g. Fq90 sock 2800:484:877c:94f0:d503:ead8:e165:4323 (see initial case, 20 January 2022): [80]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33529393/ Does discuss in terms of race. Not picked up by any secondary sources yet, but you could add it as "Kevin A Bird has found that the distribution of these genetic variants lends no support to the hereditarian hypothesis" or something like that.

I'm creating this report mainly to document ongoing block evasion, although perhaps a block of the IP range is possible. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that immediately after I filed this report, a new IP address began persistently spamming material highlighting polygenic scores across an array of intelligence-related articles in a way that was similarly non sequitur to 191.111.50.57. That IP is 12.110.37.3. Note the identical edit summary "Added new information" here: [81] (IP 191.111.50.57) and here: [82] (IP 12.110.37.3). And see also the nearly identical comments:

Hi {{ping|MrOllie}}, why did you revert my edit?

(confirmed Fq90 sock ETDS554) [83]

{{ping|WikiLinuz}} hi, why did you revert the part in the lede about the causes?

(IP 12.110.37.3) [84]
This would ordinarily be a DUCK but for the new IP's geolocation, though I see that this new IP is using a VPN. Please forgive my technical ignorance, but it is my very basic understanding that VPNs mask geolocation and can place a user even in a different country. If this is so, then I'd suggest that 12.110.37.3 is an Fq90 DUCK as well. Generalrelative (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • no Closing without action Block evasion by the IPs does seem likely, but they are stale by now so blocking won't have any impact. I'd offer to semiprotect the articles in question for a while, but it seems that the disruptive editing has already died down. If it resumes, please request at WP:RFPP. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15 August 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same narrow focus on the conjunction between "Jewish intelligence" and "polygenic scores", same approximate geolocation in Colombia.

I don't expect this case to be handled before the user moves on to another IP, but I figured it couldn't hurt to add a record of continued activity by the LTA.

Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fq90/Archive&oldid=1248866550"