Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Janiclett/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Suspected block evasion via WP:LOUTSOCK. IPs are reading static, but all in the same immediate area. User Janiclett was just blocked by Bbb23 for 1 week for edit-warring on Indigenous peoples of the Americas: reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: Blocked one week) User also engaged in personal attacks and abuse of templates. User's English did not seem fluent, with awkward phrasings, misuse of words, and bizarre misrepresentations of policy. 2 main IPs, bolstered by a more temperate 3rd, from the same geographical area have now resumed the same pattern of editing on the article, including reverting anyone who touches their edits. Pattern is to insert genetics research about Asian origins of Native American populations in the History Section instead of the DNA section, then edit-war with established editors who revert them.

Janiclett:
 * Keeps replacing photo removed by multiple editors. Note awkward English in edit summary: "Undid revision 1044046115 by Oncamera (talk) please don't remove the image, explains shortly the term existence's reason"
 * In midst of reverting multiple editors, reverts move of DNA section with very odd edit summary: "Undid revision 1044141611 by CorbieVreccan (talk) the only dispute here are you" (perhaps thinking multiple, established editors are same person goes to mindset of one who socks)
 * Made many edits concerning Mexico and South America, usually deleting content.

2001:4bc9:902:10cc:4ca9:44cb:3ad4:ca72
 * Returns shortly after Janiclett blocked to add... DNA articles about theories of Asian origins of Native Americans to History section, where Janiclett's additions were removed, and also like Janiclett deletes content about Mexico: "expanding on sample data (16,000 years old sample from Idaho"

2001:4bc9:922:3ba6:d06a:8521:ee3f:1487
 * Reverts edits to additions by above IP, citing wrong policies, as did Janiclett: Per reference; the papers do not say "possibly" or "maybe", which is a violation of MOS:SAY and WP:OR. Furthermore see WP:NPOV (Janiclett tried to take users to Arbcom Sanctions Enforcement because she didn't like the way Twinkle notices are phrased)
 * Admission of being above IP by explaining deletion of Mexico content. Again misrepresents sourcing policies, and now exhibits Janiclett's same level of English mistakes (bolding added): The reason why this paragraph was deleted, is that at first it is a news paper article not an academic reference, thus fails WP:RS. Secondly one single newspaper article can not make bold claims that there were two groups etc. See WP:Weight

There is an additional IP editing now,. The user is in the same immediate area, and is mostly supporting the same agenda, but is a bit capable of compromise, is a bit calmer and appears to have better English. Could be a meat, or good hand of good hand/bad hand. The two I formally listed seem clear, though. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I want to clarify that I am not related or connected to the user Janiclet, but simply edited the article Indigenous peoples of the Americas. I was not even aware of an edit war/dispute before my edits but simply started editing. The reason for my edits on the page are a previous discussion on reddit, where one user claimed the "real indigenous people of the Americas" are not modern Native Americans, but "Black people". I have read through the section history, and edited it according to papers I have read (and which I also included the references/links). As said before, I was not aware of a previous dispute at this section, and I did not make edits with a same agenda as Janiclet.

Regarding the accusations, I did also not edit war with you, CorbieVreccan. It was not my intention to do so too. I simply partially reincluded the wording of my previous version because in fact the references do not speak from maybe East Asian/Siberian or such terms. I did not revert your other edits at all. The references say that Native Americans descended from an divergent Siberian population. This is a concensus among historians and geneticists, so not even controversial. I did not saw it necessary to start a talk discussion, as I did neither revert you, nor was it an edit war in the sense of 3rv rule, not taking into consideration the previous edit disputes with Janiclett. I apologize for this, but honestly do not see a disruptive style on my side (also not on yours), but simply disagreement or misunderstanding. Regarding the deleted content, I already explained it in my edit summary. A single newspaper article can reliably back bold statements that there was this and that. See WP:RS and WP:Weight. But if there is an reliable reference, feel free to reinclude it.

I can understand why you think there may be a connection, but I must repeat that I am not connected to Janiclett. An IP check can confirm this probably too. Also looking at the edit style and content, I am clearly making different edits and editing different topics. I am editing with this IPs since 2019. In any way, if there are still problems regarding my edits, inform me on the talk page. We can discuss problems there. I am fully ready to cooperate, but will not accept accusations such as being Janiclet. I use IPs from Magenta Telekom Germany/Austria from Vienna, Austria. Thank you.2001:4BC9:821:61E5:4C40:4E37:544B:A580 (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You (user of many IPs) wrote "I am editing with this IPs since 2019." You responded here with a different IP than the ones you used to edit the article in question. WP is logging them as static. If you continually IP-hop, how can anyone know which user you are, what edits you have or haven't done, or contact you about said edits? This could be seen as way of avoiding accountability. If you've been editing WP since 2019, and seem to expect us to know this, why have you chosen to not register an account? - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 21:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
'''This case is being reviewed by Tamzin as part of her training as a clerk. Please allow her to process the entire case without interference. You may pose any questions or concerns either on her talk page or on this page.'''
 * The only evidence that this is something more than two people on the same side of a content dispute is the English skills, and I see a fair bit of difference in that regard. 2001:4bc9's English is like that of someone who learned the language in a fairly formal setting but misses some nuances (a good example: "I simply partially reincluded the wording"—formal, understandable, also slightly incorrect). Janiclett comes across much more as someone who is self-taught, or has a lower level of formal training. (And if either of those takes is incorrect, I do apologize. My point here is more to draw a distinction than to play Sherlock Holmes about anyone's educational background.) Obviously I can't rule out there having been off-wiki coördination between the two, but I doubt this is loutsocking. Just to clarify something, Wikipedia doesn't log any IPs as static or dynamic. whatismyipaddress.com (the "geolocate" option at Special:Contribs) does, but it's not particularly reliable for that. Regardless, being on a dynamic IP has never been seen as a form of evading scrutiny, and people have a right to not create an account if that's what they prefer—for better or for worse.Closing without action. Feel free to re-file and ping me if further evidence emerges (be that of sockpuppetry or of meatpuppetry). --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 08:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)