• Malik Kafur (talk ·  · 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

Created around the time when the original account was placed under scrutiny due to persistent copyright violations.

• Became active when the main account was under my scrutiny and was warned for copyright violations on their talkpage. [1]
• Edits Ramachandra's expendition of Hoysala minutes after the page was moved to mainspace from original account's draft space. [2][3][4]
• 14:12, 14 April 2024 Shahbaz Khan's invasions of Mewar by Malik Kafur "Provide sources supporting you claim plz"
• 06:32, 05 April 2024 Gopal Singha Dev by WhiteReaperPM "Again u have edited this information without providing sources pls provide sources or get a ban")
• 04:30, 05 April 2024 Chaitanya Singha Dev by WhiteReaperPM ("The book is written by 3 historian together Samira Dasgupta, Raviranjan, Biswas, Gautam Kumar Malik Plz don't do unsourced editing provide sources supporting your claim or u can also get ban")
• Both use visual edit and edit from mobile web. [5] [6], here Malik Kafur hyperlinked an article created by WhiteReaperPM.
• Hyperlinking of WhiteReaperPM's recently created article Ramachandra's_expendition_of_Hoysala to another page by Malik Kafur [7] Ratnahastin (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I got here following up on AfC contributions by Narook, blocked as a sock of R2dra. Possibly connected, as they're working in the same topic area? -- asilvering (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Asilvering, Both users seem to be promoting specific castes, and indeed, they pertain to the same topic area. But, they appear to edit for different castes. Imperial^[AFCND] 06:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Crystal clear  Confirmed finding; both blocked and tagged. I just blocked a sock from the R2dra group; these accounts look to be separate from a technical standpoint. Closing.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

• ShBi1902 (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Chauthcollector (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Imperial Enjoyer (talk ·  · 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

• Recreated Battle of Dodderi article in the mainspace. [8] [9]
• Similar POV edits e.g. "Mahars adopted the surname after 1900." [10][11]
• Creation of similarly titled indian military history related articles [12][13]
• Created Battle of Malthan, pushing similar pro-Maratha POV.
• Edited articles created by other suspected socks [14][15][16][17]

Ratnahastin (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chauthcollector (along with user DeccanFlood) is already filed under an SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Koitot, and based off the general pro-Maratha editing tendencies of many of these sockfarms the user could fall under any of them as none of the presented evidence here is specific to WhiteReaperPM. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Enjoyer is already filed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historyenjoyer10. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not appear to be related either to each other or master.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. Izno (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• ShBi1902 looks to be unrelated to this mess, behaviorally speaking. Chauthcollector is definitely a sock, but looks closer to Koitot or R2dra. I'll note the results on the Koitot SPI.

• Imperial Enjoyer looks very much like Historyenjoyer10 and was created just after one of his previous socks was blocked, so I'm tagging that one. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

• GroovyGrinster (talk ·  · 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

The user GroovyGrinster is a very clear sockpuppet of WhiteReaperPM, there is very clear resemblance in their editing from the myriad of pages they have created being formatted the same, especially in citations which you will see for yourself when I provide the evidence below, but as well as them working on the same topics, primarily focusing on the Maratha Empire and making a large number of pages dedicated to the military history for their victories, or the Indian subcontinent in general.

Here's some of WhiteReaper's page creations: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

These are some examples, now let's see the accused sockpuppet's pages, (groovygrinster).

[26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

These are just a few examples and theres a myriad more which you can see off of their page creation list.

Forgive me if this is formatted oddly, this is my first SPI I've done in quite a long time, but I see very considerable evidence that this user is a sockpuppet, having identical citation and editing styles, as well as having edited on the same topic(s). Noorullah (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The accused parties appear to be vote stacking on the Mughal dynasty talk page [32].

A couple of these are recent accounts, and it’s beginning to become obvious that these are socks. Hopefully a check user will get to the bottom of this soon. Someguywhosbored (talk) 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Ponyo, an Administrator who has dealt with this sockmaster before. @Ponyo: Noorullah (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with this report.
• Both are pushing maratha POV across indian military articles.
• WhiteReaperPM (provided edit summaries for 31.5% of their lives edits) and their confirmed sock Malik Kafur (47.3% of their lives edits have edit summaries) seldom used edit summaries, GroovyGrinster(only 19.2% in their case) generally does not provide edit summaries either.
• Common usage of phrase "added citation" as an edit summary [33] [34]
• Both are prolific content creators, WhiteReaperPM has created 22 articles(including drafts), while GroovyGrinster(including drafts) has created 30 articles. [35][36]
• Both use a similar naming style for their articles, e.g. Capture of* in case of Capture of Baroda, Capture of Ahmedabad by GroovyGrinster and Capture of Delhi (1788) and Draft:Capture of Cuttack by WhiteReaperPM. Another example is the use of word Expansion in titles, Simhana's Southern Expansion created by GroovyGrinster and Draft:Sadashivrao Bhau's Carnatic Expansion and Draft:Bajirao's Northern Expansion created by WhiteReaperPM. A similar case can be seen in the usage of word Campaign in the titles. Draft:Govinda III Campaign in North,Raghoji's Southern Campaign and Maliku't-Tujjar's Konkan Campaign created by GroovyGrinster and Draft:Mughal campaign of Satara Fort (1690) and Shivaji's Campaign of Javali created by WhiteReaperPM.

Most of the articles created by GroovyGrinster pertain to battles by the Maratha confederacy in which it emerged victorious. e.g:

• Battle of Gwalior 1754 by WhiteReaperPM and Siege of Aligarh 1785 by GroovyGrinster
• Capture of Cuttack by WhiteReaperPM and Raghuji's conquest of Orissa by GroovyGrinster
• Campaign of Kakatiyas by GroovyGrinster highlighting victory of Yadavas and Yadava Invasion of Malwa by WhiteReaperPM highlighting another Yadava victory

They are engaging in the same POV pushing as the previous socks. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The editor in question is a block evader thus G5 is fully justified. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Them being block evaders is not (technically) verified, so blocks for DE should not result in page deletions under G5; the pages should certainly be deleted, but the reason does matter. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a sock block. The block for sock puppetry does not have to be verified by a CU. That's how G5 deletions are valid here. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it was a sock block, but asilvering's wording below implies that the blocks should have been for DE instead. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the reason I personally blocked those two accounts yesterday was because I wanted to stop the ongoing disruption, but that doesn't mean they're DE blocks and not sock blocks. I've just been very hesitant to use admin tools with respect to an SPI case since I don't have much previous non-admin experience with SPI in general and had been wanting to leave the actual administration here to The Pros. However, while I'm no SPI expert, after many hours of investigating this bunch I think I have somewhat unwillingly become a "Maratha battles source paraphrasing sockfarm" expert, and on that basis: yeah, these are sock blocks and block-evading deletions. -- asilvering (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but the block log makes it clear that the block concerns sock puppetry given all the evidence here. Ratnahastin (talk)

Block, please. This editor is continuing not only the pattern of Maratha-related POV-pushing but also the lifting of copyrighted material from Google Books and the Internet Archive with close paraphrasing. Compare the below.

Battle of Umrani created by WhiteReaperPM (I'd appreciate it if an administrator could compare the revision-deleted versions for this one):

Source	Article
Pratap Rao magnanimously permitted the Muslim army to get out of this snare. This suicidal action naturally called forth a sharp censure from the Raja who ordered the general not be show his face to him till he had retrieved his lost prestige.	Prataprao allowed Bhalol Khan to retire as he begged that he will never raise a war against Marathas. When Shivaji learnt about this he taunted Prataprao for making peace with enemy.

Peshwa's Expedition of Shrirangapattan created by Chauthcollector:

Source	Article
Maratha ambitions in the Karnatak aimed mainly at the subjugation of the four Nawabs of Aurangzeb’s days, viz., those of Shira, Savanur, Karnool and Kadappa. The fifth, namely, the Nawab of Arcot was saved from Maratha aggression by his support from the British.	Maratha ambitions in the Karnataka region primarily focused on subjugating the four Nawabs who had held sway since Aurangzeb's era: those of Shira, Savanur, Karnool, and Kadappa. The Nawab of Arcot, supported by the British, managed to evade Maratha advances.

Siege of Kondhana created by GroovyGrinster:

Source	Article
No authentic source tells us how they managed to do so. However, the following account given by Khafi Khan, though undoubtedly imaginary, is plausible:	The exact method of their entry is not clear from authentic sources, but Khafi Khan’s colorful account suggests a plausible scenario.
The raiding party then left the palace through a wicket gate in the backyard, joined the cavalry detachment that was left across the river and rode towards Karyat Maval collecting other cavalry detachments on the way.1532 They arrived safely at Sinhgad the next day.	The raiding party escaped through a small gate, rejoined their cavalry, and reached Sinhgad the next day.
Jaswant Singh was encamped near Pune with his contingent and it was widely believed that the raid was carried out with his connivance.1	Jaswant Singh, who was camped near Pune, was suspected of having colluded in the raid
Shayista Khan did not remain for long in Pune. Frightened and mortified by this daring attempt on his life, he entrusted command of the army to Jaswant Singh and himself returned to Aurangabad.1540 Soon afterwards, at the beginning of May 1663, he was dismissed from the subadari of the Deccan and replaced by Prince Muhammad Muazzam,	Shayista Khan, deeply shaken by the raid, relinquished command of the Deccan to Jaswant Singh and retreated to Aurangabad. By early May 1663, he was dismissed from his position and replaced by Prince Muhammad Muazzam.

I've analyzed several more articles by GroovyGrinster for close paraphrasing and tagged them for G12 deletion; you can see the list on their user talk page and I've included similar text comparisons on all of the associated article talk pages. (Courtesy ping for asilvering.) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just nuked pages created by 103.120.60.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 103.120.60.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which were moved into mainspace and edited by Imperial Enjoyer. It's giving... duck. A range block might be worth considering. ✗plicit 14:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit:, yes this range [37] has been evading block and adding unsourced POV content/copyvio to 100s of indian princely state stubs for months. And recently started mass additions of articles to a category [38],a range block is necessary to prevent disruption. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Does not appear to be related.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. Izno (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I hate it. Chauthcollector, Imperial Enjoyer, GroovyGrinster all look extremely ducky to me but I don't want to make Baby's First SPI Block without backup from someone who knows what they're doing more than I do. -- asilvering (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, nevermind. GG just sent a bunch more drafts to mainspace, after all of @TechnoSquirrel69's tagging things as CLOP copyvio yesterday, blocked the two active ones before they could do any more. Maybe it's meat, maybe it's socks, whatever it is, it's disruptive. -- asilvering (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, asilvering, it kind of does matter if you're deleting their work as CSD G5. That's reserved for editors evading a block, not for disruptive editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I don't have any doubt they're evading a block. What I'm less sure about is whether the evasion is via sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry (which, as I understand it, makes no difference when it comes to G5), and how definitively Historyenjoyer10 can be identified as part of this same WhiteReaperPM circle. -- asilvering (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This topic area is a mess with nests of socks fighting each other, but behaviorally GroovyGrinster has enough similarities with WhiteReaperPM to justify a block and tag.

 Administrator note Logging for future cases that there is good reason to believe several of the sockmasters involved here might be working together, or even run by the same person/group. Historyenjoyer10, Koitot and R2dra have a lot of overlap here but there are others that seem more distantly related. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that this is very likely. -- asilvering (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Mughalaesthetics (talk ·  · 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

• Creating articles about battles where Maratha confederacy emerged victorious.[39][40]
• Editing Battle of Dodderi, a duplicate on the same topic created by WhiteReaperPM already exists in draftspace.[41][42] also editing an article created by WhiteReaperPM [43][44].
• Overlap
• Editing Shivaji's Southern Campaign 's infobox [45][46][47][48]
• Hyperlinking to battle articles created by himself on Shivaji[49][50] Ratnahastin (talk) 07:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Asilvering: - I initially suspected this user to be related to Thewikiuser1999 but later decided in favour of filing SPI here due to aforementioned evidence. The overlap does give me a pause.Ratnahastin (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I see no technical overlap between Mughalaesthetics and the previous accounts I compared against, save that they are in the same large country. I'd be inclined to call that  Unlikely, although I see from previous cases that technical data was not conclusive so I'll leave this open in case someone wants to perform a behavioural invesetigation (asilvering, The Wordsmith: no pressure, but you have recent experience and might be able to comment on that?). What I will can say with confidence is that Cebu Warrior (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Confirmed to Imperial Enjoyer. I'm going to block them now, we can figure out tags later. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Girth Summit, have a look at Battle of Tiruvadi and its most recently deleted form. That led me to User talk:Sudsahab#April 2024, which is decidedly above my pay grade. -- asilvering (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yikes - it's identical. That's too much to look past - blocking as suspected. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

• PerspicazHistorian (talk ·  · 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

Recreation of Battle of Umberkhind, previously G5'd. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi admins, I am not an sockpuppet, I am ready to explain myself. This might be a mistake. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How I got the content, Explanation: When i searched for "Batted of Umberkhind" , I got to know no such page exists. The I clicked "create page". I saw a warning sign that a draft exists. I clicked on it and used the source code to re-create the page. I was editing the page, then i got to know about the previous editor was a sockpuppet by this investigation by User:UtherSRG.

Please refer to the conversation: User talk:Girth Summit#Sockpuppet Investigation. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not acceptable. Do not copy source from one place to another, as that breaks the attribution of the work. I have moved the article back to draft and merged the work together. I've left a warning on your talk page about this. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is no stronger than  Possible. They use the same IP range that some of the socks in the archive have used, but it's a very wide range and one of the busiest in the world - it basically confirms that WhiteReaperPM and PerspicazHistorian are in the same large, populous country. Any action here would need to be based on behaviour. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Running the article through gptzero and I get a result of greater than 50% content. Previous suspected puppet Mughalaesthetics also used AI. Can we run a check against them? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Relisted - UtherSRG (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I already compared against Mughalaesthetics. They were less alike - same country, different IP range. I said when I blocked Mughalaesthetics that they looked technically different from previous socks; PerspicazHistorian is mostly on the same (wide, busy) range as GroovyGrinster. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Doesn't look likely to me, from the kinds of edits that are being made. And the way they found this draft in particular seems plausible. UtherSRG, are there other articles setting off your sock senses or just this one? -- asilvering (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just this one. I'm good for closure now. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Closing without action Insufficient evidence to show a connection to WhiteReaperPM. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---