Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nitishkumartn/Archive

20 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

On 08:07, 16 November 2013 Nitishkumartn was blocked by administrator Anna Frodesiak for continued disruptive editing after many requests. Nearly 17 hours ago an account called Jokerofalltrades was created which made its first edit to his Sandbox which seemed like a testing spot for an upcoming user page. New editors in 90% Cases edit article namespace, this one made an edit to his sandbox and new purpose of one as evident from the comment - This is a test page. Maybe he did it so as to make a new start as he jumbled up with his old one. Nitishkumartn was an editor of Indian film related articles. Generally user make edits to increase the Box office figures of their liked film by using citations from Unreliable sources like Koimoi.com, BollywoodHungama.com. According to a consensus for Box office figures a single reliable source was chosen - Boxofficeindia.com. This user, JoAT made his first edit to a article using figures from BOI.com which is pretty unusual as its a relatively unknown site and those who know about it comprise of experienced wikipedia editors. Plus he knew the use of edit summary, which brought suspicion to my mind. His rest contribs consist of knowledge about undo feature. Administrator Howcheng blocked Nitishkumartn on 15:15, 19 November 2013 which led to rise in JoAT edits.   Sohambanerjee1998   15:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry I did'nt watchlist it, plus I was busy with some other stuff. Yes I will list the evidence I can find.  Sohambanerjee1998  06:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope apart from the knowledge of WP:CONSENSUS to use BOI.com, undo feature, citing capabilities and rise in activity after the days Nitishkumartn got blocked there is'nt any more evidence. Probably I'll get more if nitish gets unblocked and see if JoaT activity sees a downslide. Thats the few evidence I have been able to gather up.  Sohambanerjee1998  08:12, 25 November 2013 (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

 * - The evidence presented is more a speculation as to this being "not a new user". Please compare and present diffs on similiar behavoir between the two accounts before requesting CU. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  20:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you offer any more evidence about this? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing for now, case can be re-opened if more evidence surfaces. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

18 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.


 * Editor interaction utility

I think it is very likely that Nehapant19 and Nitishkumartn are the same person. The latter just resumed editing after I blocked the former. They edited the same obscure articles incommon but the latter doesn't show copyvios from a quick spot check. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that User:Nehapant19 and User:Nehapent19 exist. User talk:Nehapent19 is listed at the Yasir72.multan SPI

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

Adding to the above, both of these users have repeatedly added COPYVIO content and images to articles. Also similar edits at an article:Nehapant19, Nitishkumartn. -- S M S   Talk 18:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - The evidence presented suggests a link between Nitishkumartn and Nehapant19, and enough for CU. Could the CU also have a look at a possible link to Sockpuppet investigations/Yasir72.multan as well please. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The two named accounts are ✅ to each other, and per the logs, please compare the behavior with the accounts in Sockpuppet investigations/Satyashiva. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef and CCIed. MER-C 04:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've had a look through the behaviour with Sockpuppet investigations/Satyashiva, whilst there are crossovers it's not enough for me at this stage. Closing as nothing more needs to be done here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

28 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.


 * Editor interaction utility

Sandrasen1 and Nitishkumartn both edit Bollywood and glacier articles. -- chance of coincidence is remote. Other evidence about similarities in editing withheld. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Some information related to recent editing by, , and a recently-blocked sock of Nitishkumartn, , as of about 1800 12/27/2014 GMT (I compiled this before Sandrasen1 was added to this list).

Editors Some notable user interactions: So far, we just have collaboration. Collaborating on articles is not sufficient to overcome WP:AGF (in fact, collaboration is generally encouraged), but it will serve to bolster other behavioral evidence of block- or ban-evasion if it arises. I have deliberately excluded from this list as the bulk of her edits are related to the article about her. I'm only mentioning her now to avoid a false-positive accusation by someone else later. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  23:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sandrasen1 - new account created Feb. 24. 112 edits.
 * Nitishkumartn (block 03:48, 23 February 2014) 109 edits since 17 Feburary 2014. NO edits from 20 November 2013 to 16 February 2014.
 * Nehapant19, a suspected sockpuppet of Nitishkumartn (blocked 14:47, 16 February 2014) Created 18 November 2013.
 * Suzanne Bernert created by Nitishkumartn on 18:28, 22 February 2014‎, heavily edited by him (16 edits) and Sandrasen1 (26 edits). Of the 67 edits to this page, 42 are by the listed editors, 11 are by an account with a name similar to the subject of the article, and 14 others are by editors not named here.
 * Akhil Mishra created by Nitishkumartn on 17:56, 22 February 2014‎, heavily edited by him (7 edits) in the early history of the page. Heavily edited by Sandrasen1 (20 edits). Of the 46 edits to this page, 19 are by editors not named here.
 * 7 RCR (TV Series) created by Nehapant19 on 15:28, 10 January 2014‎. Heavily edited by him and his suspected sock Nitishkumartn (31 edits between them).  Lightly edited by Sandrasen1 (7 edits).  Of the 59 edits to this page, 21 are by editors not named here.
 * Claudia Ciesla is an old article. No edits from 28 January 2014 to 21 Feburary 2014.  Of the 9 edits from 22 February to 27 February, 4 are by Nitishkumartn, 3 are by Sandrasen1, and 2 are by other editors.
 * Pradhanmantri (TV Series) is an old article. Nitishkumartn and Nehapant19 heavily edited the article sporadically from late September 2013 until January 2014. Nitishkumartn made a run of 3 edits on 22 February. Sandrasen1 made a run of 8 edits on 25 February 2014. Of the 18 edits in February, only 7 are by editors not named here.


 * @Atama You have made no cooment about this new report. Don't you see any connection? or have you missed it? -- S M S   Talk 19:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh... No. I've reopened this case for now. It's confusing to tag it on a new report to an old report like this, technically the old report should have been closed and a new one created, so that a checkuser could confirm Sandrasen1, but I'll see what I can do just by behavioral evidence alone. --  At am a  頭 20:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Both editors are blocked indefinitely by MER-C, so I'm closing this case. --  At am a  頭 19:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm asking for a CU to confirm Sandrasen1, the timing of the account creation, and the articles that the account is interested, they both suggest that this account was created in response to the block of the original two editors, but in case the timing is a coincidence I'd like CU to backup my suspicions. --  At am a  頭 20:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, together with and . T. Canens (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * as nothing more needs to be done here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

04 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Very recent edits to Nitish Kumar, Sankarshan Thakur, Gulmarg, Colonel Narendra Kumar, and Suzanne Bernert are similar in nature to reverted recent edits of, a recently-blocked sock of this editor. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  04:21, 4 March 2014 (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

 * - CheckUser cannot connect IPs to accounts. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The IP was blocked anyway by CheckUser for a week, so this can be closed. --  At am a  頭 21:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

21 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Restored the same content that was earlier added by the most recent sock. S M S Talk 12:42, 21 March 2014 (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

 * Sock blocked and tagged per WP:DUCK. Closing now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

24 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Obvious duck case again, restoring the same content as previous sock. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2014 (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

 * Blocked and tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

24 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Should have requested CU on the last case, this "new user" has strangely discovered that I reverted the last few socks, and posted the entire edit to the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Added Panunukashmir1, similar username to a previous sock, plus the restoration of the socks content.

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


 * All I did was politely asking for an explanation of what looked like vandalism to me (or how else can you explain the blanking of a whole section that looks fully referenced). My edits have nothing in common with that other guy, and I have checked Darkness Shines contributions - I'm not the only one who reverted his blanking of information and it's not the first time Darkness Shines is behaving like this
 * I will bring this to admin attention as soon as I have time (if Darkness Shines does not apologize beforehand and gives an explanation of the blanking of content on Rape by Islamist militants)). --Calypsomusic (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "... I'm not the only one who reverted his blanking of information ..." is what you have in common with the other guy. Did you forget that you haven't reverted from this (current) account? -- S M S  Talk 10:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ThevikasIN, who reverted Darkness Shines deletions in another article. Anybody can revert vandalism and unexplained deletions and check the contributions of a disruptive editor. Or can you explain what exactly is wrong with the removed section? Can "rape by militants" not be reported on wikipedia? --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny that you should refer to the restoration of content which was added by a sock of Nitishkumartn. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Look, I don't care about this other user. I care about the vandalism that I'm seeing on wikipedia, and it's not difficult to check your contributions and see what other deletions you did in the previous days and if other users reverted you or not.

I'm going to bring this to admin attention as soon as I have time, since you are still not apologizing. --Calypsomusic (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * is ✅. appears ❌.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  17:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Panunukashmir1 blocked and tagged. Closing now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

29 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Same edit as all the other socks Darkness Shines (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2014 (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

 * Blocked per WP:DUCK, page semi-protected, closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

29 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Restored the same content that was earlier added by now blocked socks: Panunukashmir1, Ehsaaskashmir, Rebeccabrown11 S M S  Talk 15:35, 29 April 2014 (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
Obvious attempt to again insert the same stuff, blocked and tagged. --  At am a  頭 02:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

16 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * - added for comparison purposes
 * - added for comparison purposes
 * - added for comparison purposes
 * - added for comparison purposes


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility


 * Rihandbandh edited 2011 census of India just like he had before with this banned sock
 * Lifelessboy is doing what he had done on a banned sock, Nehapant19. I might be lacking some evidence here. But I can still put some. Both users seemed to be busy in adding templates to "External links" of Indian cinema articles,,. Article of actress, Gungun Uprari, was created by Nehapant19. Almost no edits have been made to this article but Lifelessboy updated it. Special attachment with the categories about "Jammu and Kashmir"., User is also violating copyright policies., Just like he did on Nehapant19.

Rihandbandh, and Lifelessboy edited the same article which was edited by the banned sock. Under 6 days.  Occult Zone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:17, 16 June 2014 (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

 * - - Could a CU please take a look for confirmation and sleepers. Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * and are ✅. In addition, I found, , and , which are all ✅ as well. PhilKnight (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  23:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

02 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Today I had reverted the edits of (sock of Nitishkumartn} and I am reverted by Corestorytv who hasn't made any edits outside this page, and brought the edits of Nitishkumartn back to the page.  Occult Zone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:59, 2 July 2014 (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

 * - - The reverts are fairly telling however I'd like a CU check for confirmation and a sleeper check as well. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * All confirmed accounts blocked and tagged. The edits to Caste system in India ( & ) use the same source so combined with the CU that's confirmed. The behavioural evidence on Sanjaybaru doesn't convince me so I'm calling that possible but inconclusive. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

03 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Obvious really. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * you linked to the previous sock, but I have fixed the link for you. I knew that it is him and I also thought that it might have been listed by DoRD. I think that the sock industry is bigger. What is more surprising is that he is not going to give up. Pages such as Anindita Nayar, R. K. Raghavan were deleted by Ronhjones twice, he salted too. But this person created again with new titles Anindita Nayar (actress), R. K. Raghavan (police officer).  Occult Zone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I knocked 7 of the low hanging fruit to get this started, with the little time that I have. Didn't rule anyone out yet, not sure if I will be able to do more.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  22:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged per CU. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

26 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

is not different to.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:44, 26 November 2014 (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

 * It doesn't get any more obvious than verbatim re-insertion of contentious text to a talk page as noted in the dif by OccultZone above. They're also editing as, who is ✅ from .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Accounts tagged, closing. Mike V  •  Talk  00:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

04 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

I just saw and remembered -. Also look at --, always used boxofficeindia.com/Details/art_detail as a citation. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here he has used boxofficeindia.com/Details/art_detail as a citation with this new suspected sock. Problem with punctuation maybe relevant.- Forgets to space after coma, and sometimes he don't capitalize word after dot. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes only Niloferqureshi, Bismahmalikasini have behavioral match, they have changed Dhoom 3 page like the suspected sock, and also changed the Kashmir pages. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bismahmalikasini has created the pages that are about Kashmir's legislative assemblies, and had also made extended changes to other Kashmir legislative assemblies article with other account before.- Bladesmulti (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2015 (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
The diff by the new account des not cite to boxofficeindia, but to another Indian website (www.outlookindia.com/article/The-Lies-Of-Manu/281937). Diffs 2 and 3, which are by the same blocked sock, cite to the same website as the new account. However, the remainder of the diffs cite to boxofficeindia. Can you elaborate on the discrepancies?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

. The evidence points to similarities but not a slam dunk. A CU would therefore be helpful. User:Daviddavidar, from the archives, can be used for the CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, all I can say is that the following are ✅ with previous socks. Whether they are related or not, is going to have to be decided on other means


 * Yeah, not totally helpful, sorry to say. Courcelles 04:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the listed accounts except Niloferqureshi has edited recently. Please provide evidence of a connection between each of the accounts and the master (or even each other, although that's less preferable) for all the accounts except Dskumar008 who hasn't made any edits. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I easily see the connection between the master and Niloferqureshi, but the only thing that Bismahmaliksaini has done is create new articles. What about them ties the account to the master?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks to 's help, indeffed and tagged Ankitamehta2, Bismahmaliksaini, and Niloferqureshi. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

31 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

New single purpose account whose first (and only so far) edit is to restore POV content inserted by Nitishkumartn and his confirmed sock Nehapant19. Zanhe (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2015 (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

 * very, probably ❌. But I'd like a second opinion from a more experienced CU - the descr in the WHOIS report for the IP they're using is what's giving me pause (though the UA is still different). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I make the account as somewhere between very and ❌. PhilKnight (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The behavioural evidence is suggestive, but nowhere near enough to take action in the absence of CheckUser confirmation, so there is nothing that can be done at present. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)