Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skllagyook/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
/possibly more IPs and IDs...


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


 * Introduction

Hello,

I began to have my suspicion regarding the User:Baikal13, as the user seemed to be created for purpose. Indeed, when the several IPs (mentioned above) appeared after the User:Baikal13 with strikingly similar writing style & the exact same argument on Yamato people article, I became sure that it's reasonable to ask for an investigation, as it seemed that they were created for targeting Japanese people related topics with the same intention. (the IP user, claimed that he's not a sockpuppet on his note at  07:25, 25 March 2021‎.)

Also, I found that the same argument was first appeared on the Genetic history of East Asians article, by the already blocked user for sock-puppeting.


 * Details of action

I would like to make it clear why I have been claiming that there has been a deliberate distortion of the articles, using multiple sockpuppets.

The distortion and argument by the multiple IPs and User:Baikal13 on the Yamato people article has been exactly the same as the way that was written on the Predominantly Yayoi Origins of the Modern Japanese section of the Genetic history of East Asians.

"Predominantly Yayoi Origins of the Modern Japanese A recent study (2018) shows that the Japanese are predominantly descendants of the Yayoi people and are closely related to other modern East Asians, especially Koreans and Han Chinese. It is estimated that the majority of Japanese only has about 12% Jōmon ancestry or even less.

Recent studies suggest that the Japanese people are predominantly descendants of the Yayoi people, and that the Yayoi largely displaced the local Jōmon.

A genome research (Takahashi et al. 2019) shows that modern Japanese (Yamato) do not have much Jōmon ancestry at all. Nuclear genome analysis of Jōmon samples and modern Japanese samples show strong differences.

A study by Gakihari et al. 2019 estimate the gene-flow from Jōmon people into modern Japanese people at about 3.3% or 9.8%, and that modern Japanese cluster closely with other East Asians but are clearly distinct from the Ainu people. A study by Kanazawa-Kiriyama et al. (2019) estmates 9–13% ancestry from the Jomon in the modern Japanese."

As the section contains only 4 paragraphs, I would like to use this section instead of the entire Yamato people article, as the exact same argument and deliberate changes had been made on the current version of Yayoi Origins section. (It’s the summarized version of the current distortion that the multiple IPs are doing on Yamato people article.)

Firstly, I believe that the above IDs and IPs are deliberately using the fact that not many people fully read the actual document that was referenced. Thus, I'd like to compare the original reference, and how it was written on the wikipedia.

Currently, the 1st paragraph of the article shows that:

1) "Predominantly Yayoi Origins of the Modern Japanese A recent study (2018) shows that the Japanese are predominantly descendants of the Yayoi people and are closely related to other modern East Asians, especially Koreans and Han Chinese.[9][76] It is estimated that the majority of Japanese only has about 12% Jōmon ancestry or even less.[77] [emphasis added]"

In this fist paragraph, there are 3 references, and if you read the first reference #[9], the author of the original reference clearly concludes that, "Our analyses revealed that Han Chinese, Japanese and Korean populations have distinct genetic makeup and can be well distinguished based on either the genome wide data or a panel of ancestry informative markers" Therefore, this rather leads to the totally opposite conclusion from what the person was arguing. However the reference was misused to argue that the Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese are “closely” related.

Now, what about the second reference [76]? The reference indeed, states that the remains of “7700 years old” women found in “Amur Basin” are “pretty genetically similar to today’s Japanese and Koreans” but doesn't say as if the Japanese are predominantly descendants of the Yayoi people and are closely related to other modern East Asians, especially Koreans and Han Chinese.''' in a way that was written above.

The addition of unreasonably subjective words on the original reference is even more clear on the next reference [77]. The reference [77] is written in Japanese language. If I quote and translate the sentence directly, “ 現代日本人（東京周辺）は、遺伝情報の約１２％を縄文人から受け継いでいることも明らかになった. ” (translation) The modern Japanese in Tokyo area have approximately 12% of Jomon genetic information.

Now, he deliberately changes this sentence to “the majority of Japanese only has about 12% Jōmon ancestry or even less” Do you see the intention and the deliberate distortion?

Let’s look at the next paragraph (It contains only 1 sentence as below): "Recent studies suggest that the Japanese people are predominantly descendants of the Yayoi people, and that the Yayoi largely displaced the local Jōmon.[9]"

Again it’s the quotation [9] that I've already mentioned above. Nowhere in this article mentions the displacement of Jomon, but argues that "although similar in appearance, Han Chinese, Japanese and Korean are different in terms of genetic make-up, and the difference among the three groups are much larger than that between northern and southern Han Chinese." This reference is to be used to refute the author who wrote the section.

Now, Paragraph (3):

"A genome research (Takahashi et al. 2019) shows that modern Japanese (Yamato) do not have much Jōmon ancestry at all. Nuclear genome analysis of Jōmon samples and modern Japanese samples show strong differences.[emphasis added]" In fact, the purpose of the Takahashi paper was NOT about how much Jomon samples and modern samples are different, but rather about when “the difference” appeared.

Having said that, let’s see how the “amount of difference" had been described in the original reference.

Original sentence in the reference: “Jomon people are considerably genetically different from any other population, including modern-day Japanese.” This sentence has been deliberately changed to: “A genome research (Takahashi et al. 2019) shows that modern Japanese (Yamato) do not have much Jōmon ancestry at all. Nuclear genome analysis of Jōmon samples and modern Japanese samples show strong differences

Do you see how this person is deliberately changing the original reference?

Now, the last paragraph.

"A study by Gakihari et al. 2019 estimate the gene-flow from Jōmon people into modern Japanese people at about 3.3% or 9.8%, and that modern Japanese cluster closely with other East Asians but are clearly distinct from the Ainu people.[78] A study by Kanazawa-Kiriyama et al. (2019) estmates 9–13% ancestry from the Jomon in the modern Japanese.[79]"

[78] The study by Gakihari is about “the whole-genome sequence of a 2.5 kya individual (IK002) characterized with a typical Jomon culture that started in the Japanese archipelago >16 kya” Since the purpose of the research and the contents were quite different from how he used this reference as his “source”, I had a hard time to figure out what made him to use this paper as his reference like above.

The simple conclusion of this considerably long paper is that, “[t]hese results fit the hypothesis that the Ainu and the Jomon share the common ancestor: the present-day mainland Japanese are the hybrid between the Jomon and migrants from the East Eurasian continent, and the Hokkaido Ainu have less influence of genetic contribution of the migrants.” And the relative quotes might be: “[a]ssuming K = 10 ancestral clusters (Fig.1B), an ancestral component unique to IK002 appears, which is the most prevalent in the Hokkaido Ainu (average 79.3%). This component is also shared with present-day mainland Japanese as well as Ulchi (9.8% and 6.0%, respectively)” and “we detect very recent (2-4 generations ago) admixture for the Hokkaido Ainu, likely a consequence of still ongoing gene flow between the Hokkaido Ainu and mainland Japanese.”

Manipulating these sentences deliberately for the sentence that “the gene-flow from Jōmon people into modern Japanese people at about 3.3% or 9.8%, and that modern Japanese cluster closely with other East Asians but are clearly distinct from the Ainu people[78]“ is, in my opinion, inappropriate and misleading.

The last reference [79] had been used for the sentence “A study by Kanazawa-Kiriyama et al. (2019) estmates 9–13% ancestry from the Jomon in the modern Japanese.” I’ll just write here how it was written on the original reference paper. “When using Korean as a source population, the Jomon ancestry proportion in mainland Japanese was 13%, slightly smaller than the values of TreeMix (15.7%) and qpGraph analyses (9%; Figure 13, Table 5).”


 * Conclusion.

I understand that this page is not about whether someone's edit was appropriate. However, the idea, the intention, the argument, and the method by the multiple IDs and IPs are too similar and I'd like to ask you to check for a possible sockpupetting. It's also the reason of my considerably long description regarding the edits on the article above, so that I can show what these multiple IPs and IDs share in common. I guess their interests, arguments, and the style of editing are strikingly similar and unique, (also considering their history of contributions) leading me to suspect that they are using the sockpuppets, and abusing the articles.

When was the first time that this happened?

On 17 April 2019, by the already blocked user User:AsadalEditor

The exact same method and argument have now been applied to the Yamato people article. Recently, it was the User:Baikal13, and when I created this page, he’s been using many different IPs.,, ,

Thank you for your time.

(Added notes: I have just found that the main title should be regarding the User:Baikal13 instead of User:Skllagyook, since this is the user I began to have my suspicion regarding sockpuppets, especially when the IPs followed the user. My sincere apology on this. The main subject was supposed to be the User:Baikal13. - The list of suspected sockpuppets remains the same. It's just that the title should be regarding the User:Baikal13. Since this is my first time asking for an investigation, I am still not sure what to do in this situation, and thus, I'll leave this page as it is for now, instead of creating a new request page for investigation. I am sorry again!)

Jejuminjok (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * The report is meaningful and checkuser is warranted. Also, see the distinctive edit summaries of these two edits: Wareon (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * ,, and Hello. I just received an notification about this page and am now reading over it. At first it seemed that someone suspected me of being a sockpuppet. Now it seems that my name was used in that context by mistake and that the person suspected was in fact another user (User:Baikal13). Is the latter correct? I am a bit confused (and alarmed). Am I being investigated?
 * Thank you Skllagyook (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding the summary of mine to which you compared to Baikal's and described both as "distinctive", it does not seem so to me. They and I both were using an edit summary to make edits/ammendments to a previous edit summary (which requires a new edit, e.g. a "dummy edit" such as adding an extra space). I would assume there are other users who do this (I sometimes do it because I tend to forget to include relevant details in a previous summary or because there was not enough space for the full summary/explanation). I began my summary with "Edit to my last note" (as I often do) to make clear that I was correcting/ammending my last edit. And they (Baikal) began with some vaguely similar but different phrase ("Note to previous edit") serving the same function. Beyond that, both were related to linguistics. I am not Baikal13 and have no connection with them. Skllagyook (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have indeed had issues with User:AsadalEditor/User:WorldCreaterFighter in the past as well as some of their sockpuppets (and users and IPs I suspected of being so), including the IP 46.125.250* (that you mention above), whom I engaged with in two discussions here: []. And I reported my concerns about them here: [] (in the section I titled "Tendentious IP presistently misrepresenting sources/adding OR at Haplogroup D-CTS3946.").


 * Also, thank you very much for your correction/apology (regarding who should have been the subject of the investigation). It is very much appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * First of all, and again, my deep & sincere apology to you. (and I deeply appreciate your very kind and generous comment regarding my mistake)

Even before I found your concern here,[5] I found that the title was mistakenly named under your ID. (Unlike the User:Baikal13 and the User:AsadalEditor, I was having constant conflict in my mind whether to include you in the list, but the constant thinking of your ID rather mistakenly led me to write you on the title.) I was trying hard to change it, but the only way to change the title seemed to be creating an another investigation page.

During my own additional research after the request for additional info, I found your exact same concern as me in February, and I do (even more) want to change the title of the page if there is a way to do it. (If you know how to change the title, please feel free to do so.)

As I mentioned, unlike the User:Baikal13 and User:AsadalEditor, I wasn't too sure whether it was right to include you, when I opened the investigation page, because unlike the 2 users and the IPs, User:Baikal13's overlapping history was the only reason. It seems that the user knows your concern, and I am just personally curious whether the user was tracking your history after seeing the comment on the talk page.

Again, I understand your frustration. It's all my fault to name you on the title, and my mistake led the other user's innocent comment (based on good faith) rather to be a bad one. I would like to express my sincere apology, once again, to you and the User:Wareon.

Regards, Jejuminjok (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Additional info as requested (and my sincere apology to User:Skllagyook)

Thank you for your your time.

First of all, when I saw the article with wrong citation and obvious intention to distort the Japanese people-specific article, I tracked down the history of the article, and I found that it all started with the User:AsadalEditor, who was the already blocked user for sockpuppeting. The history of edit showed that the User:AsadalEditor, indeed, has used wide range of IPs after the edit, just like the User:Baikal13 and the IPs on Yamato people article.

The only part I wasn't sure was regarding the User:Skllagyook, but it seems now that User:Skllagyook was also just an innocent victim of the distortion I've mentioned. The reason I've mentioned the User:Skllagyook was the part that the User:Baikal13's relatively short history overlapped the User:Skllagyook, but I've recently found that, in Feburary this year, the User:Skllagyook rather had the exact same suspicion, just like me, regarding the vandalism by the IPs that reminds the User:AsadalEditor. (Maybe this is why Baikal13 tracked the history of the User:Skllagyook?) Now, I would like to express my sincere apology to the User:Skllagyook.

So, regarding the additional info:

I believe the User:Baikal13 is a sockpuppet of already blocked User:AsadalEditor. Also, it's very hard to believe that the relationship between the IPs and the User:Baikal13 are different users considering the history of edits:

In addition to the description mentioned above, please compare the following edits by User:Baikal13 & User:AsadalEditor & the IPs.

(1) near-obsession on peninsular Japonic: (Baikal13) &  (AsadalEditor) &  (IPs) (Personally, I would say that the theory of peninsular Japonic is very unique one even in Korea)

(2) tendency to use an "IP" after when the own edit using the "ID" had been changed: (This edit by the AsadalEditor had been reverted 3 days later for "Block evasion")

(3) misuse of a source to disconnect the modern Japanese from Jomon people as much as possible, &  (AsadalEditor)

On side note, Baikal (바이칼) & Asadal (아사달) are the terms that the Korean nationalists love to use. Also, there had been a recent record of history editing Korean-related article by this Austrian IP which linked a Turkish TV show to a Korean screenwriter.

The User:Skllagyook also once had the same concern  regarding the abusive use of these multiple IPs on the talk page. There are even more IPs I've found now, such as 178.115.131.86, 213.162.73.254, 213.162.73.145 & 77.119.129.170  If there is a geolocation concern, I am just curious if there is a way to claim the misuse of many different IPs based on the policy ? (Or ask for a protection of articles based on this?)

Thank you.

Jejuminjok (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
They all appear to be ❌.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This filing is way too long to parse; I'm willing to give this a behavioural examination, but I need concise, clear, tangible evidence of sockpuppetry..&#32;In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Best,  Blablubbs&#124;talk 12:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , If it's OK with you, I'd like to go ahead and close this. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * okay with me. I'm sorry, but given the large SPI backlog and the extreme length of this case, it's simply unlikely that we'll be able to action it. If there is suspicion that Baikal is AsadalEditor/WorldCreaterFighter, I suggest filing a brief and diff-heavy report in that SPI. Best, Blablubbs&#124;talk 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)