Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/R2dra

Suspected sockpuppets
is a sock of Rudra Simha who was blocked as confirmed sock of R2dra & Rajanyas. In first place Rudra Simha restored the old revision of Rajputs in Gujarat, same attempt again made by new sock, same attempt was also made by Sock IP  this IP range was blocked by @Smalljim for vandalizing many wiki pages & LTA. Rudra Simha made edits on List of battles in Rajasthan, and Hashid Khan also made edits on same page. Edits of &   overlapping with the blocked IP Range,, and with other blocked sokcs Gaurav Bisen Powar & Rajanyas as both these users made edits on Chavda dynasty and inserted word Rajput dynasty.

in next place also inserted term Rajput dynasty in lead on the pages of Kalachuri dynasty, Rashtrakutas, Chahamanas of Shakambhari & Pala empire.
 * Hashid Khan and Rudra Simha both have quite similar summaries like Added links/Added citation. Vanrajeya (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


 * Comment The filer (Vanrajeya) has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of Anujror. Ratnahastin  (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * All three heavily edit Indian MILHIST articles pertaining to Mewar and the Rajputs in support of them:
 * Hahid Khan:
 * MuA
 * Rawn3012
 * All have voted on the AfD for "Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars" with keeps: , and MuA and Rawn both voted delete on the AfD for "Maratha–Nizam wars"  , and the AfD for "Nizam's Carnatic campaigns"   (see also that  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
 * All three consistently oppose the other sockgroup (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 '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: ( Rawn:  MuA: );

In addition to this evidence, 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 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)
 * Rawn, MuA, and confirmed socks and  commented on the talk page of the Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars article numerous times, and Mughalised defended MuA as well  (Sockmaster R2dra also edited this page  but not the talk page)  all of these comments were in the same discussion with.

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)

Comments by other users

 * 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 . 2.) Flemmish then mentioned that I have voted in the AFDs. 3.) Regarding the issue that I oppose AdityaNakul; 4.) Regarding editing Ratnahastin's talk page 5.) Regarding comments on Mewar-Delhi talk page 6.) Regarding report by HistoryofIran, etc.  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)
 * This is because I am editing the articles related to military history (mostly Indian) on Wikipedia. You can even see my user page 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  (which Flemmish linked) has sources cited beside it, if I were to push my POV why would I cite reliable sources (WP:RS)?
 * Deletion discussion of Mewar-Delhi Sultanate wars. I am the author 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, 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 so it is obvious I would be part of the discussion there.
 * 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?
 * 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, and.
 * Moreover, I even asked an administrator's help for it see this.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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 ,, ,
 * As, I already told before that this article (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.
 * In response I commented this regarding the discussion . Later, I had a long discussion with Imperial on the article's talk page.
 * The comment with Flemmish 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 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  or Flemmish  or Padfoot2008 . Since the discussion was initiated by Imperial, all were replying to him as he was the only active user in the discussion supporting something different which others weren't.
 * I don't see HistoryofIran's report mentioning me which indicates that he is not suspicious of me being involved in sockpuppetry. This  which Flemmish mentioned also doesn't involve me.

@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)

Suspected sockpuppets
Recently created account with very similar disruptive editing similar to these socks and suspected sock :

Added back the text of a Mewar-victory article over an AfD result for redirect of an article created and heavily edited by confirmed sock  ; Added a "Rajput victory" battle to the list of battles involving the Marathas  which has been heavily edited by previous socks of R2dra to be a "Rajput victory" ; restored text over redirect on Vaghela (Rajput clan),  a day after Hashid Khan's same edit was reverted  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. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2024 (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 the blocked editor . Blocked but not tagged pending the results of the June 23rd SPI.-- Ponyo bons mots 16:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)