Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anatha Gulati/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Anatha Gulati

Anatha Gulati (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:

08 November 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Real Amazing Spider-Man is Anatha Gulati sock because he made same claims about Hema Malini's conversion with same "accessdate=18 June 2016"[1] like one of the Anatha Gulati sock.[2]

After checking an AFD where I had commented and this editor (Jionakeli) got in a spat with other editor, which resulted in a 24 hours block, I have gone through his edits and I am finding strong connection with Drivarum who I had encountered months ago. It also seems that @Capitals00: had reported this earlier, however I have came up with latest evidence.

Shares same modus operandi of wikihounding other's contributions, then making many reverts in a less time period and claiming that he was reverting because the other editor who removed "sourced" content was also reverting without participating on talk page. I would point out similarities only between Drivarum and Jionakeli.

  • He had wikihounded my contributions after I had reverted him on other article, and Jionakeli did the same with other user this time using same reason as before.
"It is well sourced"[3]
"well sourced"[4]
"All are well sourced"[5]
"well sourced"[6]
  • Restores objectionable content, without stating the reason.
"restoring sourced content removal"[7]
"Restoring sourced content"[8]
  • Always learns the same lessons:
"I understood that[40] I will wait on the talk page"[9]
"while I learned that I should have waited"[10]
  • Using same talk section headings.
"‎Removal of sourced information"[11]
"Removal of sourced contents"[12]
Other sock I pointed above wrote "Sourced content removal"[13]
  • Tells people to discuss when they are already discussing.
"lets discuss on talk"[14]
"Lets come on talk"[15]
  • typically relying on the publisher than the relevance of content.[16][17]
  • Naming the publisher of the source, despite next one has already commented.[18][19] Naming too many sources per WP:CITESHOT.
  • Alleging others of omitting quoting the text.
"I think you missed"[20]
"Did you missed"[21]
  • Used same format of replying on WP:AN3 by pointing out reverts made by the reporting user.[22][23]
  • Starts talk page discussion by asking same questions:
"Please, explain why you said these well referenced texts are "useless"?"[24]
"these texts are sourced with reliable sources. Please tell which information you think are opinions?"[25]
 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me D4iNa4 (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I have continued to cleanup this sockfarm's edits and I had found few weeks ago that Jionakeli had commented on the Afd where one of the sock of this sockfarm had also commented. Both accounts used same rational.

Jionakeli's first edit[28] shows its not a new account but rather too experienced.

Whole UPE sockfarm has obsession with Indian riots.[29] [30][31] like Jionakeli,[32][33] and obsession with Template:Violence against Muslims in India[34][35] like Jionakeli.[36][37]

Before CU had established link of Drivarum with this sockfarm,[38] Drivarum was "unlikely/inconclusive"[39] but was indeffed for admitted to be a sock of ProudIndian007 off-wiki.

CU said there's "possible" technical connection of Jionakeli with this sockfarm[40] and that has happened before.[41] Even that time it concerned an account that was used mostly for edit warring and disruption.

It is too apparent now that UPE sockfarm tries its best not to get caught by CU. Capitals00 (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction with Darkness Shines with a previous undisclosed account

In 2017, Darkness Shines didn't edit articles within WP:INDIA, neither did he have much interaction with Jionakeli. Why Jionakeli comments on Darkness Shines's talkpage suggesting him to put unblock request? This is due to previous interaction with the editor.

Editing templates

Jionakeli account created on 27 March 2017 at 17:15. But the account was not even half an hour old, and he made three edits at templates 1, 2, 3. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Some are stale, but I'm sure you've got something in the logs about these guys. Real Amazing Spider-Man blocked for obvious intent to impersonate, another hallmark of this hydra. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. Jionakeli has a unique technical signature, one I haven't seen before, and he was the only one using it on the ranges he's editing from. I saw no evidence of any of the sockfarms listed in these ranges.
  • That said, he's  Possible to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thantsil based on ISP and geolocation. Not sure the behavior matches, though.
  • @Ivanvector: I don't want to go into what's in the CU logs here, but if you email me I'll be happy to tell you the kind of info we see. Katietalk 22:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparing Jionakeli to the Thantsil case, behaviour is way off. As for this case, the fact that it seems to be a thing for editors in this region to accuse everyone they disagree with of sockpuppetry based on extremely general behavioural similarities makes me think technical evidence is more reliable, and so I would close this with no action. However, GeneralizationsAreBad has much more recent experience with these cases than I do so with apologies, I'll defer to them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Capitals00: The data for the socks that Salvio said were possible has rolled out of our 90 day CheckUser window. I'm not contradicting his finding. I'm simply saying that I found no evidence in our logs that these ranges were used by any of these farms. Katietalk 16:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GeneralizationsAreBad: Any thoughts? Sro23 (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: @Sro23, Ivanvector, and Krakatoa Katie: This case has always confused me because of its dual nature - POV-pushing and UPE. I am familiar with the latter, but not the former. I'm afraid I don't have anything much to add here, except that Jionakeli has cropped up plenty at SPI. GABgab 15:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence is too weak. Closing with no action. Sro23 (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21 February 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Requesting CU on three of the accounts listed as stale in my report from 31 July 2017 that became active again (Ruitroluk, Liukamer, Polutaker) plus one more (Salscipnlia). Evidence:

15:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

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]

  •  Clerk endorsed - Once more unto the breach... please compare these accounts and check for others. Thanks, GABgab 21:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The accounts are all using proxies, meaning you can include  Inconclusive in all my findings.
  • The following accounts are  Confirmed to Abigali970 (talk · contribs · count):
    • Ruitroluk
    • Liukamer
    • Polutaker
  • Salscipnlia is  Confirmed to Brisk.mgt (talk · contribs · count).
  • Blocked all accounts without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: @Bbb23: Thanks very much for the check. I assume Astrid.parks is related, too? Best, GABgab 00:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, yeah, and just to be clear, it's editing from a legitimate ISP, not a proxy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification.  Blocked without tags as an obvious meatpuppet. Closing. GABgab 00:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20 April 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Recreation of Nazanin Fara using almost the exact same text and wikilinks. I have blocked without tags, filing for the record. Primefac (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2018 (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 July 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

See recreation here CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:27, 2 July 2018 (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]

Lauraandreakell is  Likely. Ahmadies21 is  Possible/ Inconclusive. Blocked Lauraandreakell without tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other account is now inactive. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

29 August 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Recreation of a Gulati page Joel Bushby under a slightly altered title Joel Bushby (bodybuilder). Overall editing history appears highly promotional. All-at-once creations [48][49][50][51][52] are unlikely to be work of a new editor. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2018 (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/Anatha_Gulati/Archive&oldid=1142568117"