Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MojaveSummit/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


MojaveSummit

10 January 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

MojaveSummit has misread two WP:RS about Mark Skousen. The incident is available at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074#BLP violations about Mark Skousen, wherein Schazjmd has provided evidence [1] that MojaveSummit has misread the WP:RS. I'm not Schazjmd so don't blame me for the demonstration that it is a misreading. Having learned my lesson, I do not even remotely suggest that this would be something clinical, it is just a reading error, a very persistent and unrepentant one, either because of careless reading (WP:AGF) or because of a willful misinterpretation (WP:PACT).

SirJaxon has edited NoFap on 9 January 2022 [2], claiming to delete unsubstantiated allegations about a certain Owen Wilson. I don't know who this Owen Wilson is supposed to be. The person discussed in the article is called Gary Wilson. G-A-R-Y, not O-W-E-N.

Deleting information about Gary Wilson because he would be Owen Wilson is one of the most preposterous edits ever made. I mean even people who write something like The antisemitism of the Wikipedia staff with their fake history that ridicules Jewish history is sickening don't perform edits which are that dumb. Why would someone perform such a dumb edit if it weren't a provocation for me to evade my temporary block (which is as of now expired)?

MojaveSummit is Special:Contributions/2601:681:300::/48, this is publicly known at en.wiki, it is no secret, so I am not WP:OUTING them. They made an account because they were expressly told so. The most recent edits by an IP at Talk:Prosperity theology belong to them.

Special:Contributions/2601:681:300::/48 has edited Fight the New Drug on 9 August 2016, [3] and [4], in the 18 May 2016 edit, the edit summary is quite obvious WP:FRINGE. FTND is very much like NoFap, i.e. an anti-porn and anti-masturbation organization. FTND thinks that Gary Wilson is a hero (Google both their names, i.e. six words).

If you think that 2601:681:300:7900:BDA8:A826:313A:7DAB is not the same as 2601:681:300:13F:A006:7245:8D1C:2B2E, learn that both geolocate to Pleasant Grove, Utah, a city of about 38 thousands inhabitants. IPs ranges could change in time, or they could be writing from a different home address. Some internet providers allocate /48, others /56, and others /60 or /64 (in the good old days my internet provider was allocating /48). Other geolocation services give American Fork, Highland, Morgan, Orem, all in Utah, or Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Important to know is that they place both IPs in the same city.

It also checks: MojaveSummit is a Mormon (again, this is publicly known at en.wiki, see [5]), and FTND is an organization founded by four Mormons, and very active in the state of Utah. Pleasant Grove is the home of a therapy center for porn and cyber-sex addiction (WP:COI), and both accounts seem to have an understanding of my psychological drives and motivations. MojaveSummit understands what I cannot stand (i.e. unsubstantiated claims) and how I react to what I cannot stand ([6]). They seem to know I'm rather impatient, and that I would remove fringe and unsubstantiated claims ASAP (this isn't secret). They know that I defend valid edits made by other editors (well, again, never was a secret). So, yeah, they know these because it's publicly available information. It's not hard to know, and they had to do with me in the past, so they witnessed it in real time. That's why I suspect that the apparently dumb edit is in fact a provocation to block evasion. It looks much too much like an edit I would normally revert on the spot, and nobody else cared to revert it for many hours (Giraffedata failed to notice that Gary isn't Owen). (Yup, it cites a possibly predatory journal, according to Beall's List. People in the know, e.g. Nicole Prause, say that DSM-5-TR, the Bible of psychiatry since March 2022, does not buy into sex addiction, porn addiction and CSBD.)

Do note that Fight the New Drug and NoFap are two articles wherein I was fairly active in the past years, and MojaveSummit seeks to cream me (again, the conflict is publicly known), but at FTND article it would have been a bit too obvious they're socking.

Both the IP range and SirJaxon edited these two articles with a manifest aim of "reducing their bias", speaking of the articles being biased for the WP:PSCI policy, i.e. these are WP:PROFRINGE edits.

In 2022, both accounts have provided fairly long summaries for their edits, compare [7] with [8]. Their main goal at these edits is deleting verifiable information which they do not like.

Their misreadings have to do with WP:BLP: Wilson is recently deceased, Skousen is alive.

So, the two have in common:

  • bad, bad WP:BLP misreadings; evidence: [9] (see what and whom Schazjmd is replying to and calling it a bluff, the IP is MojaveSummit) and [10];
  • fringe edits at anti-porn and anti-masturbation articles; evidence: [11] and [12];
  • long summaries as of 2022; evidence: [13] and [14];
  • main goal is deletion of information which is unwelcome to them; evidence: [15] and [16];
  • they tend to consider that Gary Wilson is a hero (the LDS Church does, Google it); evidence: [17] (which proves they are a Mormon, El C says that MojaveSummit is a Mormon) and [18];
  • articles I have edited; evidence: [19] and [20]; further evidence: [21].

Let it be known: I do not pretend to know that they are socking. I merely say that there are grounds for running an investigation whether they are socking or not. If the clerk will approve my request or if a checkuser will perform the check, this will become proven beyond reasonable doubt. They are vested with the authority to decide in such matters.

So, I am not accusing them of psychological manipulation (baiting). I merely say that this would be a plausible scenario, not that I would know it for sure.

@El C: if anything I wrote here is false or unsubstantiated, please tell me it is bullshit. You may do this forever, for everything I write. This also applies to any other admin.

@Tamzin: I have obliged your request. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:07, 10 January 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]
  • @Tgeorgescu: Could you please condense this to a list of similarities between MojaveSummit and SirJaxon, accompanying each alleged similarity with one or more diffs? Even if that's just taking the bulleted list you have at the end and tacking a diff or two onto each item. The context of the underlying content dispute, who wants to do what to whom, etc., while appreciated, is weighing this down enough that it's hard for me to sift through to find the evidence. Thanks. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the evidence presented merely shows that the two editors share a POV, which is not in itself grounds for a check. I doubt that SirJaxon is a new user, but I'm not seeing much to suggest that they're MojaveSummit. "Articles I have edited" doesn't make sense as a category of evidence, given that SirJaxon has only made one edit, and if it weren't to an article Tgeorgescu had edited we likely wouldn't be having this conversation. Notably, it's an edit that MojaveSummit hasn't edited, and that cuts against sockpuppetry. As to the "Owen Wilson" thing... I'm guessing they just mixed up the guy's name with that of celebrity Owen Wilson. The only real evidence we have that this is something other than two users with the same POV is the long edit summaries, which doesn't tell us much. I use long edit summaries. Lots of people use long edit summaries. Looking at other metadata, I note that SirJaxon's one edit summary is in the present tense, while only one of MojaveSummit's mainspace edit summaries is. Furthermore, SirJaxon's edit was a VisualEditor edit, while none of MojaveSummit's have been. Yes, that could be a coincidence. And yes, that could be intentional, although usually it's only LTAs who think of that level of evasion. But it's another thing that cuts against the possibility of socking. On the whole, I do not see sufficient evidence to endorse a check. (Although I note that accounts whose first edit is to wade right into something are often checked as a matter of CU discretion, and perhaps that will happen; it's out of my purview as a clerk, however.)
    All of that said, I am not fully up-to-speed on the background here. Clearly there's been a lot of drama. So, CU  Clerk declined, but I am not going to close this yet, and rather would like to know if El_C has anything to add. If El_C or someone else more distanced from this sees a case for sockpuppetry, I might revisit my decline. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 12:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tgeorgescu: it definitely looks like bullshit. And borderline harassment. A user with one edit — really? CU is WP:NOTFISHING expedition. Why would MojaveSummit need or want to sock? They edited as an IP, then registered an account, which as it stands is in good standing. You really need to leave them alone at this point. El_C 13:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, El_C. no Closing without action. Normally I would recommend G6 for any case where an admin is describing the filing as "borderline harassment", but given that there may be reason to preserve the history, perhaps a courtesy blank would be better; just a suggestion to the next clerk/CU. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 13:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MojaveSummit/Archive&oldid=1064898632"