-
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
Suspected sockpuppets
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]
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Cyberduck_icon.png/20px-Cyberduck_icon.png)
Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me
D4iNa4 (
talk)
13:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
reply
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
- Ugh, this case.
Clerk endorsed, and I'm sorry, but please check Jionakeli against this case and all of these:
- 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.
Katie
talk
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.
Katie
talk
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.
GAB
gab
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
Suspected sockpuppets
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See
Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
-
20 April 2018
Suspected sockpuppets
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
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See
Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
02 July 2018
Suspected sockpuppets
See
recreation here
CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
16:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See
Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Lauraandreakell is
Likely. Ahmadies21 is
Possible/
Inconclusive. Blocked Lauraandreakell without tags.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
17:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
reply
29 August 2018
Suspected sockpuppets
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
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See
Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- CathyUK is
Unrelated. However, she is probably a sock, but it's not clear who the master is. She is editing from a notorious range that is replete with unblocked and blocked socks. Few if any were connected to a particular account at the time of blocking. Many of these accounts are either into UPE, i.e., creating articles or drafts, or at least promotional editing to existing articles. Also, the two user agents used by CathyUK, especially one, are common, making my review much tougher. I have therefore picked out the following accounts that, in my view, are to a lesser or greater extent behaviorally similar. I will allow others to analyze the behavioral evidence to see if blocks are warranted. Be aware that some of the evidence are deleted articles that only administrators can see. With some of the accounts, blocks may be warranted even if the evidence doesn't support socking. One account, Gharee, is already blocked.
Smartse updated the report while I was checking.
- --
Bbb23 (
talk)
17:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
reply
- For the record, I blocked:
-
Yoshree (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
spi block ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki) for being a sock of Gharee.
-
ProfessorGuy (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
spi block ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki) appeared on the same AFD (not blocked).
-
7samurai7 (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
spi block ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki) was independently blocked as being the same sockmaster.
- @
Bbb23:: does this help? I've blocked CathyUK as a spammer, it's obvious.
MER-C
19:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
reply
- @
MER-C: As far as I'm concerned, you can block any user/account you wish. I don't see how any of these users/accounts are benefiting Wikipedia. Whether they should be tagged and how is much messier, though. BTW, you failed to block ProfessorGuy.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
20:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
reply
- I've
Blocked without tags all except ProfessorGuy who looks more like a newbie. It's obvious that the others are all UPE socks but behaviorally there are some differences between them so I doubt they are all the same person. I'm not sure it's worth spending the time trying to group them though.
SmartSE (
talk)
22:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
reply
- All but one of these accounts are blocked for UPE; whether or not they're socks of this farm (or tagged at all) is not really important. Closing.
GAB
gab
18:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
reply