Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonharojjashi/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
If this not sockpuppetry, then it's clearly meatpuppetry imho. Last SPI check did not prove anything, but there were still suspicions about Jonharojjashi for edit warring with two other brand new users. Well, look what I found now;


 * 1) Jonharojjashi has a history of making poorly made/sourced POV battle/war articles which conveniently result in the (often decisive) victory for an Indian entity. They are currently making another of such poor article Vikramaditya's west Oxus valley campaign, which not only use similar citations (Muzaffar and Fodor who are not even WP:RS) as Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh by brand new user Shakib ul hassan, but even another user noted that they were quite similar in the comment of the former article; "This seems quite similar to Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh, is it the same campaign?".
 * 2) When multiple concerns were made over the article at Talk:Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh, another brand new user Magadhan3933, suddenly appeared and started defending it. Whats even more suspicious, Magadhan3933 has also created literally the same article Draft:Campaigns of Chandragupta II Vikramaditya two days after Shakib ul hassan, which was even randomly edited by Jonharojjashi
 * 3) Like Jonharojjashi, Shakib ul hassan also misuses sources, only using the part that satisfies their POV and omitting the rest of what it says as noted by me here . They also both randomly requiested the protection of Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh   under the false reason of "vandalism" (I'm not sure they understand what the word means).
 * 4) Also added Indo12122, should have done in the first SPI. Can't be a coincidence that the same brand new (and now indeffed) user whom Jonharojjashi edit warred with, is now having their edits restored by Magadhan3933  at Seleucid–Mauryan war. They also both heavily edited in Chola invasion of Malaysia (Kedah), an article barely touched these past years.
 * 5) EDIT: The plot thickens. Brand new and now blocked user HistoricPilled, is a blocked sock of User:Thewikiuser1999, and has a very similar EIA to all these users. As seen in the edit history of Maratha–Sikh Clashes, HistoricPilled and Shakib ul hassan build on each others edits for example. At Bajirao I, they edit warred together.
 * 6) EDIT: Adding Mr Anonymous 699 again. While the CheckUser did not show any connection to Jonharojjashi, it might do to the other users. Mr Anonymous has not only edit warred with Jonharojjashi (as seen in the previous SPI), but now they're also discreetly restoring the disruptive edits of Magadhan3933   , who just got a 48 hour block for edit warring in that article. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding this because the same thing happened when I moved two newly created articles from mainspace (check the talk section for the reason), suspiciously a random user came to defend it. Consider that both articles were newly created, additionally, it was moved to draftspace. It could go either way though. Imperial  [AFCND]  14:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Mr Anonymous 699 yet made another revert in favour of Magadhan3933/Whataboutery19192/Indo12122 without any edit summary. The vast majority of their edits have been reverted as well. Meatpuppet or not, they're clearly WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
 * None of these are my accounts and yea I was just trying to merge all of the campaigns of Chandragupta II with good faith to make it easier for readers and I should have attributed to User:Jonharojjashi or I should have waited for his article to be published. Moreover I am not Indo12122 now atleast. Moreover, There were other users along with me in Chola invasion of Kedah section. In Seleucid Mauryan war section, I restored his version specifically because it was detailed. I have restored many people's revision.it doesn't make me a sockpuppet. Magadhan3933 (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with User:Shakib ul hassan & User:Magadhan3933 and why I will submit AFC of the same topic 3 times? That makes no sense since both have copied my content and published their own articles, maybe they were following my activities also they are new editors unlike me and unaware of the rules of Wikipedia. Plus, Shakib ul hassan is a name which resembles Bangladeshi cricketer's name and Magadhan is a name associated to person from a region in India. I really don't see the connection here to me. Here I thought my article was published but no my articles were rejected and instead these copied articles just as my work were already published and I don't know how to report. Therefore, I thought I was too late to take any action from then onwards.
 * Coming to the User:ImperialAficionado's statement I will just say this is just a random allegation from nowhere I don't even know much about Rajput history so leave debating over Rajput history. I'm only concerned about upper northern Indian history. Jonharojjashi (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Group 1 ✅ to each other: Group 2 ✅ to each other  and I'm waffling in the  spot between these two groups. Shakib has been editing logged out in a way I wouldn't quite call abusive but which I would also call inappropriate and at least needs a warning. Not (yet?) sold on looking at the others in this report but will leave at CU requested. Izno (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Checked Magadhan after look #2, ✅ to Indo12122. Blocked. Izno (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocking group 1 given the clear evasion of a previous block. Izno (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe the remaining three users who remain unblocked, Shakib, Mr Anonymous 699, and Jonharojjashi are three different people. as to the necessity of a block due to meatpuppetry and/or a 2O will be necessary for checking my work and/or whether some split of the case is necessary. Izno (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Mr Anonymous 699 indeffed for other reasons. Remaining users seem likely to be separate people. The Wordsmith Talk to me 23:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)