Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nainanike/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Per what I've posted at ANI:

Hi. Please can I request that is blocked as an obvious sock of ? Nainanike was blocked by GoldenRing, following a long-term period of harassment/stalking of me on WP. Criclover58 is a sporadic editor, but is trying to evade their block with this other account.

Their first edit was to ask another editor (who I work with closely) to change the tense of a paragraph in a cricket article. This was something Nainanike obsessed about in their editing. C58 edits follow the same pattern of editing moments after I made an edit, again to some semi-obscure articles (example, example). I'd log this at WP:SPI, but this is a clear WP:DUCK in my eyes. Thank you.

thanks for your replies. Their second-ever edit was this asking a user a technical query about this article, which I had edited about 1hr earlier. They also created this article, which is incredibly similar to this article I started, including all the technical wiki-tags (short desc, use dmy dates, authority control), etc. If you need me to log a full SPI, please let me know. Thanks.

Note that this editor has basically ignored their block, and continues to edit as an IP, based in Gujarat, India. THat is just a small sample of the IPs I've been bothered to log. It's getting ridiculous.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Additional to ANI

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Although they only have edited three articles in common, I find it extremely unlikely that this is coincidence. I'm blocking him as WP:DUCK. I don't see how we can do anything about the IP issue other than protect the articles. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The original editor, Nainanike was blocked in Feb19 for continuing to stalk/hound edits. In July19, a sock (Criclover58) was also blocked for the same thing (per the archive of this case). In Aug19 Synux jitu began to edit. I had suspicions about this account for a while now. Their m/o is the same as the sockmaster - follow several of my edits around WP, making small and sometimes pointless changes to semi-obscure articles. I've warned them a couple of times, and have been collected diffs for the last month. A group of edits from today puts my mind in doubt that this editor is connected to the original, per WP:DUCK.

Note as disclosure: I emailed NinjaRobotPirate about this user last night, who ran a check, but states the "geolocation looks wrong". Maybe they've moved over the summer. However, NRP did provide me with this Editor Interaction Analyser, showing a lot of over-lap.

Thank you.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Editor interaction between Synux jitu and Lugnuts also indicates far too much immediate overlap to be coincidence - obvious hounding. Combined with the account having been created shortly after the previous sock was blocked, and the obvious overlap in interests between Synux jitu and the previous sock, this is an obvious duck. Blocked, tagged, closing. Girth Summit  (blether) 14:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Ankurc.17 has re-created Faleata Oval, which was deleted as created by a sockpuppet, User:Synux jitu, who was a sockpuppet of Nainanike. Ankurc.17 also has the same interest in Pakistani and other international cricket as the two accounts. There is nothing wrong with being interested in Pakistani cricket, but sometimes the same ducks quack at the same cricket matches. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Not enough evidence to block based on the behaviour and I don't have enough CU data to compare to anything. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User re-created Jafar Jamal, which had been created by the puppeteer. Also, has an edit history with many of the same articles with another sockpuppet of the puppeteer, user:Synux jitu, see here.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks onel5969 - I've had my suspicions about this editor for a while now, and certainly that raises a red flag, at least in my eyes. There seems to be a pattern of this logged in editor working on biographies of cricketers, and a logged out IP editor who continues to edit around international matches. The IP ranges are the 117.229 and the 117.233 which have had MANY blocks in the past. I used to keep a list of them, but gave up in 2019, as they'd keep jumping from IP to IP. I've had some sucess in requesting range-blocks, but I'm told that some of the ranges are too big, and blocking them would take out half of the Western world (OK, maybe not that many, but certainly a lot).


 * Recent IPs from the past week that fit the pattern of making gnome-esque edits on international cricket pages are as follows. It's basically the same guy saying "hey look, I'm still here, and there's nothing you can do!"




 * There are also some addresses that are static, such as:


 * The 117s focus on changing the tense of articles/statements. To say that it's frustrating this has been going on for such a long time, is an understatement. At least if the latter two IPs (103... and 112...) can be blocked, that would be something. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Some more IP ranges since I last commented:




 * And to note that the original sockmaster was blocked two years ago for a long-term pattern of harassment, which is still ongoing.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 20:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Another week passes, and this IP continues with their subtle harassment:
 * < mentions the 19 players selected in the squad, then picks two quite obscure BLPs that I've worked on
 * < mentions the 19 players selected in the squad, then picks two quite obscure BLPs that I've worked on
 * < mentions the 19 players selected in the squad, then picks two quite obscure BLPs that I've worked on
 * < mentions the 19 players selected in the squad, then picks two quite obscure BLPs that I've worked on
 * < mentions the 19 players selected in the squad, then picks two quite obscure BLPs that I've worked on
 * < mentions the 19 players selected in the squad, then picks two quite obscure BLPs that I've worked on
 * < mentions the 19 players selected in the squad, then picks two quite obscure BLPs that I've worked on
 * < mentions the 19 players selected in the squad, then picks two quite obscure BLPs that I've worked on


 * I don't know if a rangeblock on 117.229, 117.228 and 117.233 would work - possibly too big a range? Another solution could be to protect articles in Category:International cricket competitions in 2020–21 and/or Category:Current cricket tours. But I don't know who would be willing to keep protecting those pages for the foreseeable future.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Ugh, this is a mess. Cricket is a hugely popular topic in south Asia, so it should not be surprising that there's lots of editors who work in that area.  And given that there's a finite number of players, it's not surprising that when non-notable player articles get deleted, somebody recreates them.  I have a hunch that we're using these low-quality signals to tag people as socks who may not actually be.


 * Looking at some of the more number-crunchy signals (and digging into the archive), I see that Criclover58, Nainanike, CRICKETMANIAC303, and Synux jitu all make extensive use of mobile web edit. That in itself is not surprising; it's the 2nd most common edit tag.  But, Ankurc.17 never uses mobile web edit; that's a pretty good signal they're not the same person.


 * I'm also looking at the timecards for the various named accounts with lots of edits. With this many data points, I think that's a strong signal.  In this case, it tells me that while everybody appears to be in the same time zone (no surprise there), there's enough differences in the pattern to make me think we're looking at four different people.


 * I'll leave this open for somebody else to look at, but my inclination at this point would be to close with no action taken, other than maybe issuing a uw-login warning to CRICKETMANIAC303, but to be honest, I haven't dug into the IP histories enough to form any opinion on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The text of the Jafar Jamal article is different from the old text created by the sock, and CU indicates that CRICKETMANIAC303 is ❌ to Synux jitu. I agree with RoySmith's conclusion above that this is likely multiple people who simply share the same interest in these articles. A block on those IP ranges would almost certainly lead to significant collateral damage. Because of this, I'm going to go ahead and close this case without action. Mz7 (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Continued evasion by the sockmaster to edit via these IP addresses based in Gujarat, India. These two IPs are the most static/active in recent weeks, and follow the same tedious pattern as the sockmaster. Their main style is to change the tense on cricket-related articles, usually before the event has concluded. Examples include this and this. Another tell-tale sign is changing content, but instead of adding the cite, they just put the URL in their edit summary, such as this, this and this.

Along with these two addresses, they still use the 117.228.xxx.xxx range, which I believe it too big a range for a rangeblock. This is the most recent example. As you can see from the archive this has been going on for quite a while. If the International cricket in 2021 article could also be protected, that would be most helpfull too. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @Lugnuts You provided diffs showing the IP edits.  That's a start, but what I really need is diffs of known socks exhibiting the same behavior.  There's a lot of data to sift through in this case, and you're more familiar with the history than I am. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * - apologies, hopefully here's some behavioural evidence that shows it is the same user:


 * Sockmaster obsessed with updating day/times of matches, as is IP 103.74.72.16
 * The sockmaster was blocked for a long-term pattern of stalking me around WP. For example, this edit made four minutes after I edited the page. From the IP, this edit three minutes later. Both are semi-obscure cricket biographies. Essentially, the IP has a very subtle approach of still following around my edits, despite their main account being blocked. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * There are also edits like this with IP 103.74.72.16 changing the match numbers, which they also do under their 117.228.xxx.xxx range, which I mention above. All these IP addresses are in the same location.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

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

In short: this does not look like a webhost, but it's not a purely residential range either. The listed IPs could be corporate VPNs, offices, etc. I could use a second opinion from. MarioGom (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To your question about proxies, here's some findings:
 * The are no technical signs of the two listed IPs being open proxies or consumer VPNs.
 * Spur (see spur.us) does not flag any of these two IPs.
 * The upstream ISP is Ishan Netsol (see official page).
 * Cloud Shield stands for Cyber Cloud Shield (more info at LinkedIn). They do a variety of things, including corporate services, CCTV, etc.
 * The 103.74.72.0/22 range (but not these 2 particular IPs) have corporate VPNs, various corporate appliances, CCTV systems, etc.


 * A big thank you to everyone who's helped with this - very much appreciated.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Further to comments, below, the IP has also used these addresses in recent months:




 * So if a range-block on 103.74.72.xx is possible, that would def. help. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . I can't confirm IP addresses to accounts. I can only confirm accounts to other accounts.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * could I ask you guys to look at this? WHOIS says the IP is registered to "Cloud Shield", which sounds kind of proxy-ish to me, and you guys are the proxy wizards. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @RoySmith It's tricky – Mario summed up the technical situation well. I'd call it possible that this is some sort of corporate gateway based on the range, provider and WHOIS, but I would usually expect open ports in that case (I didn't scan, but Shodan isn't giving me anything); I can't really give you more than that from a technical perspective. Even if it is a proxy, it's likely not one where I would recommend extended hardblocks, so I recommend just proceeding as you would with any other IP address. Blablubbs (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm reasonably sure these IPs are Nainanike, based on the evidence presented here. 103.74.72.16/28 covers the 103's mentioned in this case, so I've blocked that range for 6 months.  We can revisit whether a wider range is needed if that becomes an issue.  The other IP range seems way too wide to even think about blocking.  As for page protection, I'll semi-protect International cricket in 2021 in a moment.  There's a few other pages [that look like common targets], but I'll leave it to you to evaluate the actually disruptiveness and ask at WP:RFPP if any need protecting. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * They are now editing as, so I think the rangeblock would have to be – that's the ASN CIDR, still rather narrow and seems to cover this user's edits pretty far back. The /28 only covers  103.74.72.16-103.74.72.31 (i.e. 16 IPs), which would be an extraordinarily narrow range for an ISP to assign. Collateral looks negligible to nonexistent. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Lugnuts, yep, that's 103.74.72.0/24 – /24s are X.X.X.0-X.X.X.255. :) Blablubbs (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Blablubbs I don't think a /28 is that unusual. One org I work with has a /29, which seems to be their ISP's standard allocation for a small business.  In any case, from what I can see, 103.74.72.0/26 covers what's actually been reported in the SPI.  Have you seen any IPs in use here that are outside the /26?  For a long block like this, I'd prefer to keep it as narrow as possible. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @RoySmith, sorry, should've specified, I was referring to dynamic allocation on residential ranges. Early contribs for the /24 show on List of Twenty20 International records, and  edited various cricket-related pages in January. It could of course be that they're rotating on subranges that are all in that /24, but the /24 seems very stable, this shows someone bouncing around on the entire /24 within a few months and I'm not seeing meaningful collateral – I think this is all one person given that the entire range seems to only be interested in cricket. You can of course block the /26 and keep an eye on the wider range, but I'd personally recommend just blocking the /24. If we realise that there is substantial creation collateral at ACC, we can always drop it down to < !-- ACC Ignore -- >. Blablubbs (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I've updated it to the /24. I'm not familiar with processes at ACC; what's " ACC Ignore" mean? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally, anyone requesting from an IP that isn't blocked for simple vandalism or with the anonblock template will be deferred to CheckUsers for review, in order to ensure that we're not facilitating block evasion – for overly busy ranges, CUs will place an "ACC Ignore" comment in the block template, meaning that no CU review is conducted before account creation. Blablubbs (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Closing. Blablubbs (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( originally filed under this user)


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

More cricket-related stalking of edits I've done, as per each previous case in the lengthy archive.


 * On the page for the 2022 Women's Cricket World Cup squads, I make this edit about a player who is ruled out of the tournament. Sock makes this edit a few days later, copying the text word-for-word I added (but with the other player's name/team).


 * Back to back edits on this page. Andrea-Mae Zepeda? Cricket in Austria (not Australia...) Pretty obscure article to come across.


 * Similar patern here on this Kenyan women's cricketer, and then for this Hong Kong women's cricketer, who hasn't played for months.


 * Makes this edit to the Netherlands A cricket team in Ireland in 2021 article. Dutch A team? You crazy foo! I ain't gettin' on no plane! Apart from some clean-up and anon. IP edits, the creator and main contributor to that article is/was A.A Prinon. Moments before that, they make this edit to a Dutch cricketer's bio, not longer after I've made an edit. The only other (logged-in) edit to that page was by "A.A Prinon (Alternative)".


 * Similar stalking patterns around a whole raft of Sri Lankan women cricketers one, two, three, four, five, etc, etc.


 * Pick a guy who has been retired for nearly two decades and suddenly take an interest in his bio (see the edit history). The volume of cross-over from their short wiki-career is staggering.


 * As a final note, they made this edit to the userpage of User:Synux jitu, who is a blocked sockpuppet of User:Nainanike. Now Nainanike was blocked for pretty much the same stalking behaviour. I'm not 100% convinced that Prinon and his sock army are also behind Nainanike's account, as I think they're two different people. But if a check could also be done against that account, it would be most useful.


 * Thank you.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Report moved from Cambria Math to Nainanike per Girth Summit —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 18:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I ran CU on, and it's not a good fit for - all the Cambria socks I've looked at geolocate from the same place, and this one is different. However, I do think there are very strong indicators linking it to . Both puppeteers have a history of following Lugnuts around from one cricket article to another, and the fact that they edited Jitendra 's user page is very suggestive; coupled with the fact that Jitendra was created the day after Jitu was blocked, I am confident enough to block as suspected. Closing.   Girth Summit  (blether)  18:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Very similar editing behaviour of following my edits around on some quite specific cricket-related articles. See the page history on this, this and this page, for example. I'm assuming they're based in India from their edit time and userpage, but they could also be located in Bangladesh per another sock. The latter would make random posts on my talkpage to announce they have returned with another account, not to dis-similar to this recent post.

I feel that this is too much of a coincidence for a new-ish account to get stuck in, and show the same tell-tale behaviour of previous socks, but I could be wrong. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

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

While I see CheckUser has been declined, note that there is still an issue. User:MNWiki846 was indef blocked in December 2021 for allegedly being a bot. User:MNWiki845 registered a few day later with a similar name. If nothing is confirmed here, then there might be a seperate investigation for the user. Human (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You might want to add something. Human (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this Human - I didn't know about the previous account. It's clear that the current accout (User:MNWiki845) is the same as their blocked account (User:MNWiki846). 845 was blocked on 29th Dec, with 846 starting to edit on 2nd Jan, with them trying to circumnavigate the original account being blocked.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * - are you able to help with this, please? By that I mean splitting out this latest request into a new SPI case? I've seen it done on other cases, but don't want to break anything by doing it manually. Thank you!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - All previous socks are, so CheckUser won't tell us anything useful here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look at this account, and compared it with notes on Nainanike and Cambria Math; technically, this isn't a match for either of them. While it's obviously the case that they have an older account which is blocked, that was only soft blocked for a UPOL violation - blocks like that explicitly invite the user to create a new account with a UPOL-compliant username, which appears to be what this person has done. An interest in cricket is not in itself evidence of sockpuppetry, so absent any convincing and specific behavioural evidence of sockpuppetry, I'm closing this without action.  Girth Summit  (blether)  07:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
This is indentical to what happened about this time last year. This person has been evading a block for a long time by using the 117.228 IP range, which changes daily, and is too big to rangeblock. Note that my list is NOT exhaustive. However, they also edit via these two static IPs. Behaviour on cricket-related articles includes:


 * Updating a page with adding the URL into the edit summary:
 * IP 59.185
 * IP 112.133

This mirrors edits done by the 117.228 range such as this, this, this, etc.


 * Changing the start times of cricket matches:
 * IP 59.185
 * IP 112.133

Again, this mirrors edits done by 117.228 such as this


 * They're also obsessed with changing the tense of articles:
 * IP 59.185
 * IP 112.133

And once more, the same from 117.228 one, two, three

Finally, all three (two static IPs and the 117.228 range) edit this page a lot.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * More of this today with 112.133 doing this and this at 03:35 and 03:36 and then 59.185 doing this and this at 03:38 and 03:39.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * CU Spicy (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Cricket is very popular, so it's hard to say any two editors who share an interest in cricket are socks. I took a look at the contributions for the two static IPs.  Most of them have not been reverted, so I assume the people who edit cricket are OK with the edits.  I don't see that there's anything SPI can do here.  Closing with no action. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Made a bunch of edits here right after I created it. I nominated Tafadzwa Musakwa for deletion and then had a look at the creator's user page and history, noticing something suspicious.
 * Similarity in name with Im Jitendra 03
 * Same geolocation: The name "Jitendra" sounds that they are from India, and the IP is based in Gujarat.
 * Jitendra Khuntia claims in their user page that Laura Wright is created by them, while Im Jitendra 03 also did the same]. However, after checking the deletion log, found that the article was originally created (later deleted) by a blocked sockpuppet of Nainake.
 * Similar interests in creating and editing (1, 2, 3) articles related to non-notable/unpopular cricket umpires (4) and also international tours. RoboCric (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The new IP I added later (103.181.100.220), its location is also Gujarat and only edits are to this and this article where Jitendra Khuntia recently edited. I reverted an edit made by Jitendra], which was immediately restored by the IP account. Observing their edits to my recent articles, I also feel that it's a possible hounding by them. RoboCric (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also note the plenty of interactions between Synux, Jitendra and Khuntia. RoboCric (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Jitendra Khuntia based on behaviour. IPs haven't edited in a few days, closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Plus please note that Jitendra and Strikers both have a common habit of adding little/unnecessary content but making a bunch of edits (probably to increase their edit count), which usually anyone can do at a time. Please compare Special:Contributions/Jitendra Khuntia with Special:Contributions/J Strikers and also overlaps between them. They have made plenty of interactions within just 1 day of editing. RoboCric (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Account created on 11 April 2023 (40 minutes after previous case was opened.
 * Their first edit was to this article where the most recent editor was Jitendra. And both of their edits were same, just to add or remove a redlink. Please see the page history.
 * Same pattern of editing- In April 2023, he was again named in X squad for X series. (1 and 2
 * Before the previous case was filed, Jitendra made edits to this article where they changed the "full name", changed parameter "publisher" to "work", changed the date formatting and changed "Canterbury Kings" to "Cantebury". And now, J Strikers did the same thing, made unnecessary minor edits which hold no significance to the same articles. Links- 1, 2.
 * Again, following my edits around and making edits to the recent articles created by me (specially, future cricket tours which are not even viral at this moment) like the previous sock. Please see 1, 2, 3, 4 and also the William O'Rourke article. They have the complete knowledge of how to add wikiproject banners within their first day of editing!
 * The only substantial edits to this article was made by the page creator Jitendra Khuntia. The only other person (except a page reviewer) to edit the page was J Strikers. What he did was just to add two citations, seems that he is improving the article created by him. Here's the diff
 * Same goes for Zimbabwe women's cricket team in Thailand in 2022–23. One user created a redirect, Jitendra Khuntia was the person to remove it by adding content. Only person to edit this article except Jitendra is J Strikers. See the history
 * Another point I missed: They added a CricketArchive link to cricketer Hannah Perry in their user page. The same link and cricketer's name was also included in Jitendra Khuntia and Iam Jitendra's user page. See the revisions- 1, 2 and 3. RoboCric (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Since you have closed the previous case just one hour ago. Can you please have a quick look at the newer case? Seems to be an obvious sockpuppet. RoboCric (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * , closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * Account was created on 13 April - the same day when previous sock J Strikers was blocked.
 * Similarity in user name with Criclover58.
 * Main focus in on cricket articles, especially which are related to cricket umpires and international cricket tours. Compare them with Special:Contributions/Jitendra Khuntia
 * Their very first edit was to create their user page, and included the same link of cricketer Hannah Perry. But this time they included it as a hidden text (it's not anyway normal for a brand new user to create a user page with their first edit). Please see.
 * Their user page is a complete carbon-copy of Jitendra Khuntia's user page. They both have completely same infobox for themselves, including the user box (This contributor to Wikipedia is male.),Handedness: Right and Blood type: O+. Both Samurai and Jitendra put the same link of Match officials for ICC events and bilateral series in their user page. They both have included the same names of cricketers in their user page (claiming that they have created it).
 * Most importantly Samurai recreated this article which was earlier created by Jitendra Khuntia and later deleted per G5. As far as I can remember, both have used the same kind of formatting and language.
 * They made edits to this article, which was substantially edited by J Strikers and Jitendra Khuntia recently. Please see the page history. RoboCric (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: Proceed with concerns per this message on their talk page. RoboCric (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And now the user acknowledged to sockpuppetry and hounding. RoboCric (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ to . Blocked, tagged, closing.  Girth Summit  (blether)  09:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)