R2dra (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

• Mohammad Umar Ali (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Rawn3012 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hashid Khan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

• All three heavily edit Indian MILHIST articles pertaining to Mewar and the Rajputs in support of them:
  • Hahid Khan: ([1][2])
  • MuA ([3])
  • Rawn3012 ([4])
• All have voted on the AfD for "Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars" with keeps: [5] [6] [7], and MuA and Rawn both voted delete on the AfD for "Maratha–Nizam wars" [8] [9], and the AfD for "Nizam's Carnatic campaigns" [10] [11] (see also that Constructive45 is a confirmed sock in the "other group")
• Both also used the exact same quote and link in the same discussion on the Maratha Confederacy talk page ([12] [13])
• All three consistently oppose the other sockgroup (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AdityaNakul) in AfDs and talk pages; see the previous Maratha-Nizam and Nizam's Carnatic campaigns AfDs, in addition to the other evidence below:
• All three edited Ratnahastin's talk page, and Hashid Khan did so mentioning his suspicion of a sock for the "other side" while having only 3 edits and an account age of 1 day: ([14] [15] Rawn: [16] MuA: [17]);

• Rawn, MuA, and confirmed socks Mughalised and BasedMaratha commented on the talk page of the Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars article numerous times ([18] [19] [20]), and Mughalised defended MuA as well [21] (Sockmaster R2dra also edited this page [22] but not the talk page) — all of these comments were in the same discussion with ImperialAficionado.

In addition to this evidence, HistoryofIran made a lengthy report on ANI on the conflict between these Indian MILHIST sockfarms which contains more evidence. There is also this sockgroup, who's member Based Kashmiri mass-G5'd, nominated for deletion, and reverted edits of members of the AdityaNakul group; It's not clear if this (R2dra) and the Based Kashmiri group are related, but it's all very messy. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there was also a filing for Hashid Khan right above this that I failed to see, posted an hour before I posted mine, but mysteriously the posting user only has 6 edits. Either way, more evidence. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment for the Administrator: Flemmish has alleged that I am a possible sock puppet of R2dra based on no strong evidence.

1.) Flemmish mentioned that I am heavily involved in articles pertaining to Mewar and the Rajputs [23].

• This is because I am editing the articles related to military history (mostly Indian) on Wikipedia. You can even see my user page [24] in which I added months back that I am interested in history so it's obvious that I will edit history articles. There is no Wikipedia guidelines that only specific users could do that. Moreover this edit [25] (which Flemmish linked) has sources cited beside it, if I were to push my POV why would I cite reliable sources (WP:RS)?

2.) Flemmish then mentioned that I have voted in the AFDs.

• Deletion discussion of Mewar-Delhi Sultanate wars[26]. I am the author [27] of this article which makes it obvious to vote if any user nominates it for deletion.
• The user also mentioned that I participated in other deletion discussions [28], I already told that I edit the articles related to military history (mostly Indian) so if such an article (from Indian history) was nominated for deletion, I participated in deletion discussion. I also provided the reason regarding my take and participation in discussion should not be a problem.
• And I was the one who nominated Nizam's Carnatic campaign (1725-27) article for deletion see this [29] so it is obvious I would be part of the discussion there [30].
• Also, in future too, I might be involved in more such discussions so will this user(or others) always suggest my name as a possible sock puppet?

3.) Regarding the issue that I oppose AdityaNakul;

• I was opposing the editor DeepstoneV (now confirmed sockpuppet of AdityaNakul) as he was constantly reverting my edits without any justification. So, I decided to post these messages on his talk page [31], [32] and [33].
• Moreover, I even asked an administrator's help for it see this [34].
• Also, some other editor previously had an investigation regarding whether I was a possible sockpuppet of AdityaNakul with this same evidence of talk page which Flemmish too has used. That investigation didn't find me involved in sockpuppetry [35].
• This is a serious issue, someone in future again could use this same Deepstone v issue and allege me of sockpuppetry so kindly do something regarding this.

4.) Regarding editing Ratnahastin's talk page [36]

• When I nominated Niam's Carnatic Campaign article (1725-27) I asked other users involved in Indian history to put forward their views in the deletion discussion. And Ratnahastin was a part of those users. See this [37],[38], [39], [40]

5.) Regarding comments on Mewar-Delhi talk page [41]

• As, I already told before that this article [42] (Mewar-Delhi wars now redirected to List of wars between the Kingdom of Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate) was created by me and User:Imprial had some problems with it so he wanted to have a discussion with me on the article's talk page [43].
• In response I commented this regarding the discussion [44]. Later, I had a long discussion with Imperial on the article's talk page.
• The comment with Flemmish [45] has linked is one of those comments from the discussion. Besides, I would like to ask Flemmish how to have a discussion without commenting?
• And I have no authority to stop other users from commenting or participating in the discussion, if someone defends me [46] or support my comment that doesn't confirm that he/she is my sockpuppet or vice-versa. After a draft is accepted anyone can edit it be it R2dra [47] or Flemmish [48] or Padfoot2008 [49]. Since the discussion was initiated by Imperial [50], all were replying to him as he was the only active user in the discussion supporting something different which others weren't.

6.) Regarding report by HistoryofIran [51], etc.

• I don't see HistoryofIran's report [52] mentioning me which indicates that he is not suspicious of me being involved in sockpuppetry. This [53] which Flemmish mentioned also doesn't involve me.
  

So, I have answered each of the alleged claims by Flemmish of me being involved in sockpuppetry. I think that now he would also understand that I am not involved in any kind of sockpuppetry.Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Flemmish Nietzsche Clarifications from my side about the objections had put

• Rawn3012 ([21]) I just corrected the name of the battle If you are having even a llittle knowledge of Mewari history you would be knowing that Maharana Raimal fought the battle of Mandalgarh in which Kherabad was captured not the conquest of Hadoti. Conquest of Hadoti was all together a different millitary campaign which was conduced by Mahmud Khalji and It was the father of Maharana Raimal, Kumbha whose general were involved in Conquest of Hadoti. So what's wrong in correcting the name of the battle.
• For Maratha Nizam War I was not even aware of such thing was happening I was invited by MUA for that and my voting was based on My decsion
• Both used the same quote?? I was discussing with the Padfoot for adding some info in the lead section which he was denying by demanding a reliablle source So I provided him the source which was already quoted. It was attempt to save my effort. You were also there are'nt you ? You said me that if I have the sources I can add my info.
• Rawn: [33] Regarding having a conversation between me and Rathanhastin. He was senior editor to me and I was not knowing the process of deletion so I asked him to nominate it from my side which was the article of Seige of Chitorgarh(1544). It was article a created by Sockpuppet too
• Regarding commenting on Delhi Sultanate wars. You just gave a random link of my comment before even daring to read it or on whose side I was. I commented on the side of ImperialAFCND he proposed to improve the articles so as I. Even after improving the article when he moved it to the draftspace I did not pulledoff any objection.

The only other account I am having aside of this account isNikel3012. It was only used to upload maps created by me as I wanted separation between tertiary and graphical usage on Wikipedia for me atleast. It has been mentioned in my talk page too.

Rawn3012 (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

• बादशाह (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Recently created account with very similar disruptive editing similar to these socks and suspected sock Hashid Khan:

Added back the text of a Mewar-victory article [54] over an AfD result for redirect of an article created and heavily edited by confirmed sock Narook [55]; Added a "Rajput victory" battle to the list of battles involving the Marathas [56] which has been heavily edited by previous socks of R2dra to be a "Rajput victory" ([57] [58]); restored text over redirect on Vaghela (Rajput clan), ([59]) a day after Hashid Khan's same edit was reverted ([60]) and the user blocked; added an edit request on Talk:Battle of Haldighati also a day after Hashid Khan and his block with the same requested change of "Mughal victory" to "indecisive" with a similar argument. ([61] [62]) Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Likely to the blocked editor Hashid Khan. Blocked but not tagged pending the results of the June 23rd SPI.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have blocked Hashid Khan since behavioral evidence too links them to बादशाह and both accounts were engaged in revert-warring with IP/accounts from other sock-farms. Can be tagged once their possible link to R2dra is determined. Abecedare (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

• Historyenjoyer10 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Very similar editing tendencies and views of previously blocked socks in this group (pro-Hindu, Rajput, Maratha, anti-Muslim, Mughal, people-trying-to-invade-India, etc.), seen in their many created drafts:

• Recreated Draft:Battle of Dewair (1582), a very controversial article (note the full protection on its now redirected page) showcasing a "Rajput victory" which, when rejected for the current consensus not to have a page on the topic, was blanked by now-blocked sock Dooblts, a sock of the opposing side in this sock conflict.
• created Draft:Hindu Conquests and Expansion, a list article with no sources.
• created Draft:Capture of Torna fort, Draft:The Maratha rebellion, and Draft:Maratha Invasion of Rohilkhand, all Maratha victories against Muslim states, and Draft:Twin Battles of Debal, also a Hindu, Indian, and non-Muslim victory
• Added many statements of "Maratha victory" or "Indian victory" to pages: [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]
• Had an initial username of "HinduHistoryEnjoyer" which does not show their bias at all. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Already blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historyenjoyer10/Archive. Closing. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

• Raged Pratihar (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Raged Pratihar, a newly created user with fewer than 30 edits, has demonstrated knowledge of adding citations and understanding limitations regarding their use, typically possessed by Indian history editors. Like R2dra, Raged Pratihar appears to be a Rajput caste POV pusher, attempting to exaggerate caste-related topics that often lack notability. The name "Raged" "Pratihar" (suggesting aggression and a caste name) raises further suspicion, especially given that the long-term sockpuppeteer R2dra currently has no active socks. The editing focus, edit summary style, and use of original research are similar to those of R2dra.-Imperial^[AFCND] 07:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raged Pratihar approached me first on my talk page and requested that I move the page as I had page mover rights. Then he proceeded to start an RM after I refused. This advanced knowledge about Wikipedia (page mover rights and requested moves) clearly indicates that the user is a sock. PadFoot (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Endorsing a CheckUser ASAP because of ongoing disruption to an AfD that was created by the sockmaster. Jdcomix (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if they are a sock but they level personal attacks about other editors and filed a retalitory SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AdityaNakul that was reverted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Likely to Hashid Khan and बादशाह. Spicy (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

• NorthSiderRock (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2402:ad80:139:5139:1:0:b8be:cbfb (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2402:ad80:138:2bad:1:0:bc36:7614 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Howlings (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

This IP basically did all of the work for me lol: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1239975689&oldid=1239846313&title=User_talk:Jdcomix The reported IPs geolocate to previously blocked LOUTsocks/meatpuppets of R2dra as well. Requesting CU for sleepers. Jdcomix (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that being said, the IP I mentioned on my talk page may be someone's sock too, considering their first edit was to go to my talk page and request me to reopen this case. Not sure whose sock they would be though, so that's for someone else to determine. Jdcomix (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is very likely a sock, as any IP with knowledge of sock puppetry in their first few edits almost always are, but what's odd is the IP pinged me in their edit, but isn't located to be where sock groups who have contacted me in the past usually are; usually such a user or IP who would mention or contact me falls under the AdityaNakul or Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala groups, although there may be some off-wiki coordination or proxy tomfoolery going on, or the IP may have just seen that I've filed reports under this sockmaster before. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is most likely a sock of Anujror,it became active right after their range was blocked, compare these edits [72] [73]. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2409:408C:918C:D3AA:0:0:39B:A8A4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

• The first and only edit this IP has made was to !vote oppose on an RM at Talk:Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport.
• The IP knew how to use boldface even though it was its first edit [74]. The IP didn't use the visual editor (as it hasn't been tagged as a visual edit).
• The IP shows the same pro-Maratha/pro-Shivaji tendency as seen in all other socks of this group. PadFoot (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - adding Howlings to this request; created August 18 and only work has been to add (questionable) sources to an article created by R2dra and de-prod it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Howlings Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lol how could you report me without any proof. NorthSiderRock (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]