Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anatha Gulati/Archive/1

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:

12 June 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This involves the deleted article DigitGaps, the AfD of which I closed as delete. Brisk.mgt and Abigali970 were involved in writing that article and also promoting it elsewhere [1]. Shortly after the deletion nom, Sallynathalia started going around deleting other data services company articles by blanking. That account was blocked and subsequently Danielgc92 went about PRODding those articles [2]. A COIN discussion was started on this with evidence that there was a related off-wiki campaign. Samwiki2001's first edit was to blank that discussion [3]. There's obviously some form of socking involved, but based on the discussion on the COIN board it could be more than one set of socks and/or linked to other accounts, therefore I'm requesting CU. —SpacemanSpiff 15:03, 12 June 2016 (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]

23 June 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


User ImranAli51 has no contribs but asked me via email to visit the article Growth of religion and paraphrase the copyvio content added by User:Karibahar. I replied that was not an admin task and that he would have to do it himself. Now User:Juliandas51 has performed the amendments and posted on my talk page. This looks to be members of the same sock farm as User:Karibahar. Requesting checkuser as there are likely other recent accounts created as well, judging by the extent of the previous socking. Thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

The scope of contributions of the user User:Juliandas51 is similar to Karibahar the sockpuppet Bolialia, he is trying to bring edit that carried out by the preivous users (and now, with misrepresentation of informations and sources), he called me try pushing pro-Christian bias, a language used by the Bolialia. Also a user who has less than ten contributions, I find it exciting attention that he is aware to the encyclopedia rules as DRN or FYI.--Jobas (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is worth mentioning here that Jobas has been socking here[4]. A CU might be useful. Juliandas51 (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Confirmed to previous socks:
Karunmaya (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Ramunaka (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Hujkalima (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Swalapal (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Gagerla (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Kalaserpan (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Degiarman (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Aschinanda (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Jumratio (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
ImranAli51 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Kajirangae (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Kayumlika (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Kolpan31 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Jazbeeren (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Hasgalio (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Prachakra (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Kanunipa (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Gendermal (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Hurpurait (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Rutalmera (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Hujkalima (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)


Juliandas51 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Possible.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. Mike V • Talk 20:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've blocked Juliandas51 based on a combination of technical and behavioral evidence. Behaviorally, the edits to Growth of religion are similar in content and timing to those of previous socks, as well as the tendency to edit-war. In addition, the link to Commons provided by Juliandas51 is to a list of Jobas's socks supposedly at en-wiki. Of course, no such list exists. Indeed, until June 22, the list was of Jobas's socks at ar-wiki. The change was made by Kolpan31, a confirmed sock here and whose only global edit was the single edit at Commons. The fact that Juliandas51 even knew of that edit and used it to smear Jobas is telling. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08 August 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I noticed similarities between this account and past sock Juliandas51. On Growth of religion, Juliandas51 emphasize the decline of Christianity and the growth of Islam. Koltrevio's edits to the same article are a lot more subtle, but still show a criticism of the Christianity parts. Here are more edits from the same user pushing Islam religion:[5] [6]. Also they've been doing a lot of rapid reverting of edits, some of which do not appear to be obviously vandalism, and I'm not sure why. Looking in the page history of Growth of religion, Koltrevio kind of reminds me of another recent changes/page patroller that would edit the article, User:Drikulaeri, who was blocked for being a sockpuppet. Of who, I don't know, but I assume Anatha Gulati. Sro23 (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. All my above mentioned edits were additions of text removed by other editors so please check carefully. I do not know the sockpuppet Anatha Gulati. This is all I can say and this is what the case will hopefully reveal. Koltrevio (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Because I am not sorting things out in a timely way, I'm closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16 May 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Yes he is back. Inserting same[7][8] entries that he did with his now blocked socks.[9][10] Capitals00 (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: you made a thorough check? I hoped that there could be connection with Terabar too though. Its no doubt because such as edit warring on Criticism of Hinduism,[11][12] restoring BLP violation on List of converts to Islam from Hinduism[13][14] then canvassing Bonadea [15][16] to help him in edit war. Capitals00 (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: do you see any similarities with Terabar and this Drivarum? "The edit patterns of User:D4iNa4, User:Rzvas are very similar to User:Capitals00", same nonsense spouted by Terabar[17] "Capitals00 is again using his secondary accounts D4iNA4 and Rzvas to remove edits critical of Hinduism". Capitals00 (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He just left a note on @Bbb23:'s talk page[18] detailing history of my sockpuppetry("as pointed out by other editors before me like") similar to what Terabar used to say"User: Zanhe reported the same thing few months ago." Capitals00 (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY. Because Terabar has enough blocks for edit warring, he resorted to edit warring with this new account on those articles where he couldn't get his version. WP:MEAT is way too apparent, I mean how some user will start editing from 14 May, and claim me to be a sockpuppet of same user, putting up same evidence, pinging same users, with same theories of Terabar? And always trying to justify his disruption because "you are sock", even after being told by an admin that we are not socks,[19] only one specific user can do that, while lacking the ability to understand WP:BLPCAT. Both have problems with WP:CIR. Capitals00 (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Drivarum: While the admin later agreed[20] that WP:3RRNO was justified and that I had to describe more on edit warring noticeboard. No wonder admin found your edits incoherent.[21] Yes you said "guess he is using another sock"[22] to justify your disruption. Capitals00 (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ivanvector: I understand, but its case of WP:STICK, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:CIR. ArbCom doesn't take these cases none of the SPIs were not mishandled. And ANI will just waste time of more people because normal users have no WP:CHECKUSER to look into technical details. In short all we got is one user(Terabar), who happened to read some SPIs that were turned down then claim them as 100% conviction. See this diff, first time he ever alleged me to be a sock. Like you said you got mails, messages in matter of a week, but why not in last 2 years? He is just failing to drop stick and getting other WP:MEAT puppets to do same thing for him. Simple solution would be to block Terabar and this meat puppet (Drivarum), since none of their edits have been beneficial, as observed by every other involved editor (why no one reinserts Terabar or these other accounts edits?) instead the accounts are now meant to harass only, introduce WP:BLP violation to articles. I have been in content dispute with many other users but never find anyone calling me a sock, except Terabar and this meat puppet.
I also see that Terabar has mentality of calling everyone a sock (WP:ALLSOCKS) who disagree with him. Example[23](first discuss on the talk page. Or either you are a sock account), person was not a sock. Capitals00 (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. First of all I am not a sock but User:OwnDealers is a sockpuppet of the nominator User:Capitals00. The edit patterns of User:D4iNa4, User:Rzvas are very similar to User:Capitals00. He is accusing me here as I undid his blatant removal of well referenced information[24]. Thank you. --Drivarum (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical and stupid allegations by Capitals00 against me and Drivarum. Drivarum also mentioned me here along with other editors such as User: Zanhe when pointing the sockpuppetry of Capitals00. It is stupid to say that just because we both pointed to past editors who reported or expressed their opinions about sockpuppetry of Capitals00 can be a matter of sockpuppetry. I have never done sockpuppetry as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Just because I and User: Drivarum revert his nonsensical edits doesn't mean that we both are sockpuppets or interconnected. Perhaps Capitals00 should look into the mirror and read his blocklog where he was blocked for sockpuppetry several times and only then he should start pointing to someone else. Thanks. Terabar (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Capitals00, you should stop your baseless accusations. I am not a sock and I told that several times. Just show me proofs about what you mentioned "trying to justify his disruption because "you are sock"". This is clearly a baseless claim. Now, come to your edits. You reverted my message on an article's talk page[25] accusing me as a sock. Secondly you lied on edit warring noticeboard as well while filing complaint against me[26]. And your claim of WP:3RRNO while keep reverting me is also invalid[27]. Drivarum (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a clerk note; I've been pinged, messaged, and emailed several times about this over the last week or so. Look for my reply when I wake up and decide whether to bring this to ANI or ArbCom. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Unlikely/ Inconclusive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

31 July 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Probably stale:

The same way of inserting ads into Wikipedia. Compare with, for example, Arilskio90 or Cronitilaks. Rentier (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

@GeneralizationsAreBad: What do you think about this above comment of mine? Anatha Gulati is not the sockmaster, it could be Benhold that is surely the oldest account of this sockfarm, I have provided evidence on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ProudIndian007, so before we think of any site-ban, we need to first sort out that SPI. Capitals00 (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't it be prudent to remove Malunrenta's new page reviewer permission to preserve integrity of NPP until this is resolved? It appears they have done some extremely suspect patrolling such as LeapRate which I recall being a total promo piece embroiled in the Forex & binary options-related stuff that has come up as problematic again and again. Also reviewed Garçon Wines, another expand-from-new-redirect job [31] which quickly earned COI and advert tags. This smells fishier than anchovy pizza. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Although I suspect we won't be seeing them again regardless. This should be less likely to happen in future since it takes a request to get the right now. SmartSE (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The accounts above all show a similar pattern of behavior. They will first create an article with a nonsensical redirect target, then a day or two later come along and write a spamvertisement over the redirect with an edit summary along the lines of "expanding with citations". This behavior in itself is more than enough to pass the duck test, but since this appears to be a spam ring, I would like to request checkuser be run to see if there are any sleepers or undiscovered accounts. Some examples (visible to admins, as the pages have been deleted under G11): Creation as redirect [33], new edit [34], creation as redirect [35], edit [36]. Some of these pages were also marked as "reviewed" by accounts identified at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralizationsAreBad: It looks like the case you mentioned is very similar to this one and is flagging some of the same accounts. I'd be fine with rolling this one into it, since it looks like it's substantially larger. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Clerk note: @Rentier: Before I wade through this massive list, could you please clarify the behavioral similarities to save time? If it's a WP:BEANS situation, feel free to just email me. Thanks, GABgab 23:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, Spansca (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is not  Stale, so please check away

Please also check the following suspicious accounts, which overlap with other socks:

I am detecting a couple of different patterns of behavior here. One is that described by Rentier. Others like to create sandboxes and apparently make articles out of them.

IPs are all over the place. I'm seeing U.S. and the subcontinent, particularly Kolkata. The technical results may be accordingly wonky. Luckily, we have a fairly clear pattern of behavior.

I can't comment on ProudIndian007, but I'm seeing overlap with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xingzuin and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar. I want to emphasize that these groups may be unrelated technically but related through behavior if a) they are using technical trickery, b) they are using colleagues, or c) the client who hired one of these farms then hired another when his article was deleted. Then again, they may all be the same guy(s) - I dunno.

I have not evaluated the  Stale accounts to see if any fresh ones have edited their articles. That might be worth looking into, as would a community ban proposal.

To the reviewing CU: Drinks are on me. GABgab 02:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • All blocked, they are using the same redirect-and-expand method. GABgab 13:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Er... probably? IIRC, I started looking at this without realising that Salvio was already on the case, when I realised, I added the "checking" status. Salvio would probably be better placed to answer your question; I haven't really had anything to do with this one. Yunshui 雲水 08:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These all have behaviour in common: create one set of throwaway accounts for spam (new articles or linkspam), and a second set to rapidly review the edits to work around the processes which normally catch spam; both sets do one thing and are then immediately abandoned. Blocking doesn't really matter because they abandon the accounts anyway, and we're not able to construct an effective technical restriction because they just use open proxies or VPNs to get around them anyway. We need a new solution; I have a drastic one that I'll expand on elsewhere. In terms of this case here, I agree with Vanjagenije, I'd just close it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, closing. Berean Hunter, Vanjagenije, Ivanvector, this is a conversation we should absolutely continue elsewhere; I like the idea of a UPE tag, and I'm interested in what Ivanvector has alluded to. GABgab 16:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralizationsAreBad: posted at WT:SPI. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anatha_Gulati/Archive/1&oldid=1076199894"