Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesOredan/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


JamesOredan

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

24 February 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


EddTey is very likely a sockpuppet of JamesOredan. They speak the same way and are working together to disrupt a page (empire on which the sun never sets and see talk: the empire on which the sun never sets) to push some sort of a political agenda (historical revisionism and anachronism). I require an investigation to get rid of these serious doubts.Barjimoa (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

20 March 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

IPs and recently created account, repeating the edits of recently blocked account:

  • Master: [1] sock1: [2]
  • Master: [3] ip2 (stale): [4] sock1: [5] - see also previous logged-out editing and edit-warring in this article.
  • Master: [6] ip1 (latest): [7]
  • sock1 shows up in talk page discussion in support of then-blocked master and sock EddTey: [8]
  • Various other examples...
-- IamNotU (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

This case is being reviewed by Cabayi as part of the clerk training process. Please allow Cabayi to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on Cabayi's Talk page or on this page if more appropriate. Cabayi (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08 April 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

IPs and recently created account, repeating the edits of master and recently blocked sock account. Previous sock Blade and the rest was blocked on 21 March, they made some edits logged out on 22 March then a few minutes later created and switched to the new sock account. Since then they have continued with long-term edit wars of the master and other socks in various articles and talk pages.

  • Blade and the rest: [9], NothingHam Bread: [10], both repetitions of many previous edits for the past year or more.
  • NothingHam Bread continuing edit warring of previous socks in another article, (e.g. [11]), basically the same edit as above: [12]
  • ip3: Makes a talk page comment complaining about reverts of previous sock edits: [13], then NothingHam Bread edits and re-signs the comment: [14].
  • Blade and the rest: [15], ip1: [16], ip2: [17].
  • ip4: reinstates a reverted edit of Blade and the rest: [18]. IamNotU (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
information Administrator note The user account is obvious,  Blocked and tagged. A few edits weren't reverted yet, but they're minor and I don't know enough of the subject matter to say that they should be reverted. The IP addresses are all dormant for 2+ weeks. Leaving open for clerk/CU decision on sleeper check or IP rangeblock. ST47 (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

27 April 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


User:JamesOredan was blocked on March 17. His last sock puppet (User:NothingHam Bread) was blocked on April 8. User: Liberty Wealth came into existence on April 13.

Liberty Wealth undertook pretty much the same edits as JamesOredan, with same language (e.g. Al-Andalus replacing "Muslim rule" in Spain with "presence" or "occupation", etc.) Since the terms have misleading insinuations in English, I thought it was a matter of his not being a native-speaker, but after discussing on his talk page, evidently he has an agenda. (See: User talk:Liberty Wealth for our interchange.)

  • Here's JamesOredan's's edit from February 7: [19]
  • Here's Liberty Wealth's edit April 25: [20].

Given that JamesOredan has abused sockpuppets repeatedly before, I thought I'd confirm this is just another sockpuppet before wasting my time further.

Thank you. Walrasiad (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC) Walrasiad (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

This case is being reviewed by 1997kB as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

29 May 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

IPs so far in the range Special:Contributions/2A02:2E02:D98:1300::/64. Same geolocation and network as many previous obvious IP socks in Special:Contributions/2A02:2E02:D80::/44. General themes of "everything is Spanish" and "Spaniards are not African, Muslim, or Portuguese".

  • 2a02:2e02:d98:1300:813:b576:1de6:56e3
    • Editing the lead sentence of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, to say that it is historiographically correct to call him King of (a unified and very important) Spain: [21], and also that the Conquistadores should be described as Spanish. Also here: [22]. Continues long history of JamesOredan edit-warring over the historiographic correctness of "King of Spain" and "one single Spanish Empire" in the lead sentence: [23], [24], [25], [26] etc., and other parts of the same article: [27], etc.
    • Changing Conquistador to say that they should be described as primarily Spanish, and Portuguese not so much: [28], with edit summary "The term Conquistador is used mainly to refer to the Castilian soldiers in the conquests of the Aztec and Inca Empire. Its use to refer to the colonization of Brazil is much more limited." Repeats a change by JamesOredan 18:19, 14 February 2019‎, with edit summary "Conquistador is a term primarily used for soldiers of the Spanish Conquest. Although some authors extend the meaning to a greater extent, referring to the Iberian conquerors of the sixteenth century in general." The original edit is redacted, but you can see the before-and-after: Special:Diff/883312010/883833900.
  • 2a02:2e02:d98:1300:1c46:89fb:102b:4b92

Note that the one other IP in the range, 2a02:2e02:d98:1300:7416:e7ed:69fa:6cd1, made an edit downplaying Muslim historical/genetic influence in Iberia: [30]. This is a common theme of JamesOredan, for example in African admixture in Europe, but I'm not sure that it's conclusive. IamNotU (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

20 August 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


New but obviously-experienced user made a dozen rapid pointless edits, then followed in the footsteps of previous socks and IPs. There are numerous similarities in articles, language, and habits, including:

  • Continuing a long-term edit war about Francis Xavier's nationality:
  • Repeating a previous sock's unsourced claim that Spaniards are largely Celtic, in another article:
  • Editing the so-called "results box" in English Armada:
    • Jacob34T: [40]
    • JamesOredan: [41], he also discloses that he edited from this IP, with the same network and geolocation as all the other reported IPs.
  • Removing the Iran section header from Parliament:
  • Stating that African genetic influence is mainly in Portugal (i.e., southwestern Iberia), not Spain:
  • There are several other tip-offs that I won't reveal here, I can send email if necessary.

-- IamNotU (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update, a "smoking gun": repeating the same edit, with the same language in the edit summary, in White people, where JamesOredan also made several edits:
    • Jacob34T: [50] "Added Germany, and ordered with reference to the lowest estimate."
    • Blade and the rest: [51] "Added Germany." and [52] "Organized according to the low estimate."

--IamNotU (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Confirmed

 Blocked and tagged.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16 September 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This and a dozen or so other IPs in Special:Contributions/46.222.0.0/16. Similar articles, interests, and language, and repeating old edits:

  • 46.222.225.201 (today)
    • Reinstated the last edit of the previous sock account Jacob34T in African admixture in Europe, a favorite article with years of sockpuppetry and edit-warring: [53], [54]. Also several other similar edits there.
    • Previously-blocked broadband IPs on Orange Espana geolocate to Albacete. First article edited by this Xfera Moviles wireless IP was Albacete. It downplayed Arab influence on Spain, a common theme.
  • 46.222.172.162 - Repeated Jacob34T's removal of the word "legally" in Italians: [55], [56]
  • 46.222.210.87 - Continuing an edit war by Jacob34T: [57], [58], [59]
  • 46.222.35.150 - Continuing the same edit war: [60].

See also older IPs 46.222.223.142, 46.222.71.97, 46.222.202.7, 46.222.202.7, 46.222.202.7.

--IamNotU (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC) IamNotU (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

13 November 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Pro forma: already CU-confirmed. If any CU would care to confirm the confirmation, that'd be great; I don't think it's necessary, but User:SmithGraves asked for a proper "investigation" in an unblock request, so we might as well waste some more time on that person. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Fyi, complaining loudly about unfair accusations and lack of proof of sockpuppetry is typical of this user, see their final edit as "Blade and the rest": [61]... I guess they qualify for a WP:THREESTRIKES ban now? --IamNotU (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

@Drmies: There was no need to request confirmation of your confirmation just because a sock bitches about "no investigation". However, I've done so and tagged both accounts. I've also revoked SmithGraves's TPA. @Ajraddatz: Please globally lock the two accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03 December 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Same network and geolocation of previous IPs, e.g. Special:Contributions/2A02:2E02:D98:1300::/64. Repeating edits of previous sock account SmithGraves: [62], [63] IamNotU (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

08 February 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

NormanGear arrived a few weeks after the last sock and IP ranges were blocked. They have the same basic agenda as the master and previous socks, i.e. tendentious edits promoting Spain and its place in history, and particularly emphasizing the "whiteness" of Spanish people and the view that genetic influence of North Africans/Moors/Jews in the Iberian Peninsula is concentrated in the Portuguese, not the Spanish. They have also used a number of idiosyncratic phrases in edit summaries etc. shared with other socks. They are currently on a three-month topic ban from the Spaniards and Portuguese people articles for edit-warring over these subjects, mainly with one other poorly-behaved user: AN3 report (also: ANI report 1, ANI report 2, ANI report 3, first AN3 report). They seem to have avoided their old stomping ground Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula, maybe because they know it's on my watchlist...

They self-disclosed here that they edited from 84.78.247.214, and were obiously also on 46.222.138.139, compare: [64], [65], as well as e.g. [66] - there have previously been numerous obvious socks in the 46.222.0.0/16 range, see this SPI report and the next edit: [67], continuing sock Jacob34T's edit war: [68], [69], [70].

Magellan:

  • 46.222.223.142 and sock Jacob34T editing (and edit-warring) about Magellan: [71], [72], [73], etc. - see other edits around the same date - but they don't get very far.
  • NormanGear returns months later to try again: [74].

Spain was definitely the first "global empire":

Examples of downplaying African etc. genetic influence on Spanish people (there are many more):

Boosting African etc. genetic influences on Portuguese people, again there are many more:

  • NormanGear/84.78.247.214: [91] (compare also this edit summary from blocked IP sock: [92]); [93]
  • Blade and the rest: [94]

Finally, complaining about being accused of sock puppetry "without proof": [95], [96], [97] (see also [98]), User talk:SmithGraves

Since they already have three CU-confirmed socks, can they be tagged as banned under WP:THREESTRIKES? IamNotU (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: thanks! Nice to feel appreciated :) Wish I'd seen it a little sooner and spared people the tedious circus at ANI... --IamNotU (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Confirmed, blocked and tagged. @Ajraddatz: Please globally lock the account.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IamNotU: Despite my antipathy for THREESTRIKES, I agree that it is appropriate and have tagged the master's userpage accordingly. I also wanted to thank you for spotting this and for your excellent evidentiary presentation.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I resigned as a steward a week or so ago. After six years it's time for other things. You can try pinging -revi instead :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one tells me anything. Your resignation is a great loss to the steward corps. As usual, I'll take your advice: Revi?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
04:04:50 <@StewardBot> -revi locked global account NormanGear with the following comment: Long-term abuse: [[:en:Special:Permalink/939790045#Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments|Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesOredan]] — regards, Revi 19:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, loss of Ajr is a great loss of our wisdom. — regards, Revi 19:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22 March 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

The usual scenario, waiting a few weeks since the last block, then at it again. The RetinB account was created 8 March, today made ten random edits, then jumped directly into a couple of JamesOredan and the rest's regular topics. A couple of hours after they finished in African admixture in Europe, ip1 (wireless IPV4 46.222.1.142) showed up and continued in the same vein. There have been numerous other sock IPs in the 46.222.* range, same network and geolocation, see previous reports.

ip2 (broadband IPV6 2A02:2E02:D91:7000::/64) started editing immediately after the previous three-month block of 2A02:2E02:D90::/44 expired. It has the same network and geolocation as the previous socks in that range. Typical articles, edits, and edit summaries, e.g.: [99], [100], [101]. See also JamesOredan clearly editing logged out from adjacent range 2A02:2E02:D80::/44: [102], [103], and all the other typical edits in that range.

Examples:

Spain was definitely the first global empire, not Portugal, because this one book used the phrase:

And others, see previous report.

Spaniards are definitely white people, with no significant African or Arab DNA, unlike those Portuguese:

Either that map goes or I do!:

There's more, if necessary... -- IamNotU (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

16 May 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


CU result is  Likely and there is a similar interest (continuing the edit warring) at Spaniards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Blocked and tagged and closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

27 July 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


What seems like a WP:SPA who, just like Visoredd did before, started out by making some edits to unprotected pages by mostly just adding links [118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127] and then taking a break (presumably to get enough edits to be autoconfirmed and then waiting for enough to pass for the same) before engaging in Spanish nationalist editing. In this case, there are a couple of of similarities with previous accounts:

In conclusion, it looks like a WP:DUCK to me. TompaDompa (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Based on my research for previous reports, and various indications that I won't describe publicly, I'd say that this is undoubtedly JamesOredan. --IamNotU (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

10 August 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

There have been numerous previous socks in the 46.222.* range, see e.g. [170] and older SPI reports. Looks like they usually only last a day or two, but anyway...

Carrying on the same years-long edit war in African admixture in Europe: [171], compare with sock RetinB on 22 March: [172] and various others, and obvious sock Special:Contributions/46.222.1.142 editing in the same place on 21 March.

Other activity is disruption and edit-warring in Italians, about genetics and culture, another of his favorite articles; see edits of socks Jacob34T (talk · contribs), Blade and the rest (talk · contribs), etc.

PS, it looks like all these stale IPs are obviously him too: 46.222.52.145, 46.222.215.189, 46.222.232.152, 46.222.39.22, 46.222.110.192, 46.222.19.184, 46.222.1.142, 46.222.226.29, 46.222.7.243, 46.222.33.249, 46.222.61.137, 46.222.205.130. IamNotU (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and reverted the edits as obvious block evasion. There haven't been any more edits from that IP in the last couple of days, so you can probably close this. --IamNotU (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

26 August 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Typical patterns for this user: a couple of weeks after the last sock (this time FornesNF (talk · contribs)) is blocked, a new user shows up, makes 10 innocuous edits, waits a few days for autoconfirmation, then dives into the same edit warring:

FornesNF, restoring Spanish as a "world language" along with English and French:

  • [173] Reverted to previous status. Spanish is often considered a global language
  • [174]

FornesNF, after being reverted, repeats the same two edits:

  • [175] RV, in the absence of finding consensus
  • [176]

Circadue, also the same two edits, and the first edits they made after getting autoconfirmed. Edit summary shows knowledge of the article's history and talk page disputes that FornesNF was also involved in:

  • [177] In the article, the Spanish language has always been alongside French and English as the main global languages. Returned to its original position waiting for the Talk threads to be resolved.
  • [178]

Similar older edit-warring by JamesOredan, moving Spanish above French:

  • [179] Recovered the previous status due to the validity of official sources.
  • [180] I have not used Wikipedia articles as sources. I have used official sources of the Spanish State as a source. Specifically, the Cervantes Institute, which is widely used and obviously accepted by Wikipedia. Also in this article, French organizations of the French language have been used as sources. Stop distorting, accusing and distorting. Discuss in Talk by contributing official sources, please.
  • Apparently he feels somewhat strongly about it. He made the same edit (and only this edit) a total of twenty-three times: [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201].

As usual there are some other indicators that I won't reveal right now, let me know if more evidence is required. -- IamNotU (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

27 August 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Ongoing shenanigans, generally downplaying African/Muslim presence and genetic influence in Spain.

The day after I reverted this obvious IP edit: [202] in favorite article African admixture in Europe, from the 46.222.* range reported earlier (see also [203] by sock RetinB), it was restored by 81.203.176.111 which geolocates to Albacete, where many previous IPs did:

  • [204] Part of the edition recovered because it is correctly found in the article. Added Greece.

I didn't notice it at the time, so the IP is stale now. I just reverted it again, along with edits by sock Greedent. Within an hour, 84.78.250.133 showed up to restore it again. The geolocation is a bit different, but it's on another network; he seems to use more than one.

  • [205] The previous edition was more complete. However, Sicily belongs to the Southern Italy.

84.78.250.133 also repeated basically the same edit of previous socks in Reconquista, about Muslims being expelled from Spain (and not just some!), and that it was in 1609: [206], compare with this: [207] from the now-blocked 2a02:2e02:d90::/44 range, and this: [208] from the 46.222.* range, restoring these: [209], [210], from the older adjacent 2A02:2E02:D8F::/44 range that's also obviously JamesOredan, and were made the day after JamesOredan was editing the same article. -- IamNotU (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added yet another IP 84.124.156.8, from the same general area of southern Spain, today making very similar changes in African admixture in Europe as the others that I reverted:

  • [211] The lead of the article was a mess - editing the same sentence that the other IPs in the past days have, and which JamesOredan and other socks have been edit-warring over for years; removing the statistics from it, adding Greece as the other IPs did. It also adds more text, the gist of which is that a little African admixture is found in lots of places. The idea that Spaniards are just as "white" as other Europeans is a hallmark of JamesOredan's editing.
  • [212] - deleting another similar sentence.

Conceivably this could be a different person, but I think it's too much of a coincidence and all adds up to a picture of a duck.

I don't know if there's much point in blocking these IPs. GeneralNotability, maybe you could also page-protect African admixture in Europe? It's already been protected several times before, because of JamesOredan. I've been trying to keep an eye on it since the last one expired in June, but it seems to be getting a little out of control... --IamNotU (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

03 September 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Back again, carrying on years-long disputes again, about genetic purity of Spaniards and how glorious was the empire again?

The IP was active in early August, and again for the past several days, and all 50 or so edits seem to be theirs, so probably a block is worthwhile. Other IPs in that range, and geolocating to Albacete, have been reported previously.

In Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula, a long-time stomping ground:

  • IbeRequeté adds "citation needed" to the same sentence about Middle Eastern genetic influence that numerous socks have tried to change: [213]. Sock "Blade and the rest": [214], two days later 188.76.0.171 (same IP range, network, and geolocation as the one being reported) [215], and other socks: [216], [217], [218], etc.
  • Removing mention of the Canary Islands:
    • IbeRequeté [219] The Canary Islands don't belong to the Iberian Peninsula
    • Sock Jacob34T: [220] The article talks about the genetics of the Iberian Peninsula, the Canary Islands do not belong to the Iberian Peninsula or the European continent.

In Expulsion of the Moriscos, also a favorite topic in this and related articles, edit-warring the past few days with another user and an IP:

  • The IP typically insisting there's no significant North African DNA in Iberia, and if there is it's in Portugal!!: [221], and then edit-warring over it. See also IPs from previously-reported range: [222], etc.
  • After failing to win the edit-war, the IP starts adding "citation needed": [223], then eight minutes later IbeRequeté shows up to take over: [224]

In Portuguese Empire insisting Portugal was REALLY NOT the first global empire!!! Spain was (too)!!!!:

In Reconquista (another old fave), the IP makes the same reverted edit: [231] as last week's from obvious IP 84.78.250.133 (talk): [232] (see evidence in previous report).

As usual, there's more if needed. -- IamNotU (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

27 September 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


All these are CU blocked; they are a match with IbeRequeté (talk · contribs), who was tagged as "suspected". Drmies (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

13 October 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Similar to the rest, waiting to get autoconfirmed then jumping right into old stomping grounds including Spaniards and Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula, downplaying North African genetic influence in Spain, and playing it up in Italy and Portugal, see previous reports. For example:

In Spaniards, continuing a years-long edit war over the same sentence, to downplay Muslim influence and North African genetics:

There are various other indications. Requesting CU due to history of sleepers. --IamNotU (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC) IamNotU (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding DavideNotta's comment below, I'll note that JamesOredan has been known to brazenly deny their sockpuppetry, e.g.: [250], [251], etc. I think the diffs and other behavior speak for themselves, but I can provide further details in private if necessary. --IamNotU (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

The accusations are false and cherry-picking. Many of my editions are totally different, and even some editions are literally the opposite of what he argues. He has only taken certain few adverbs, adjectives or tiny phrases that coincide or are similar. He also claims that I have jumped to an article related to Portugal to edit or add things from North Africa, but actually I have not edited anything related to Portugal or the Portuguese at all. This is easily verifiable in my contributions.

Futhermore, I'm not downplaying anything. I have only tried to simplify, and I have added the influence of the Moors, previously called "Arab-Berber" in the Spaniards.[252], [253]. You can see perfectly that in the article Spaniards and Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula there is no type of North African downplaying. They are mentioned and developed perfectly, I have not deleted or hidden anything from the topic.

I have also restored the stable version of the Iberian Peninsula, recovering the source and phrase where the Sub-Saharan influence of Iberia is confirmed.[254]

Add update: It seems now that the fact that both JamesOredan and I deny an allegation is also proof. That isn't a proof, rather it is something that anyone can do. Don't use fallacies, and everything you have to contribute do it in public, not in private. You are showing clear acts of bad faith. DavideNotta (talk • contribs) 12:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
-- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21 August 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

CU requested for the named sock only; I'm aware there will be no comment on CU evidence for the IPs, but I'm including them as listed socks for the record (the first is part of the evidence). BaylanSP was blocked for WP:NOTHERE behavior on 8/9; in some of his editing, he logged out and edited from the 188 IP address, which was obvious and was noted at the relevant edit warring report [255]. BaylanSP primarily edited Spain-related articles to downplay the non-European genetic history of Spaniards, to downplay the presence of non-Romance language in Spain, to play up its national achievements, etc., and edit warred whenever their POV edits were reverted. Five days after BaylanSP was blocked, the 37 IP showed up to restore some of Baylan's reverted edits[256][257]; Itagnol then appeared and their first edits to Wikipedia were to edit war to maintain BaylanSP's edits [258][259][260]. Itagnol also edit wars on Spanish nationalistic topics, uses some of the same arguments (e.g., "broken links") [261][262], the same tendency to capitalize the word "Lead"[263][264], the same use of a greeting to sign off [265][266], both primarily edit from mobile. Grandpallama (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Adding PLUS ULTRA CARLOS to the list on the basis on behavioural overlap. Same Spanish nationalist interests: lists of rankings of Spanish history (Itagnol, PLUS ULTRA CARLOS). Same interest in Spanish-born Roman emperors as BaylanSP (shown in previous diff). Substantial overlap at Spanish Empire, including large additions with same referencing formatting and style (Itagnol, PLUS ULTRA CARLOS) and edit warring with similar edit summary tone (Itagnol, PLUS ULTRA CARLOS). PLUS ULTRA CARLOS did not edit between 13 August and 22 August, Itagnol's first edit was 16 August and most recent edit was 20 August. PLUS ULTRA CARLOS' first edit was 21 October 2020, which would tie in with the 14 October 2020 CU block of several other JamesOredan socks. Jr8825 • Talk 02:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • Comment – Itagnol has also displayed DUCKish knowledge of article history within the topic area, pointing to a 3-year-old diff to support their argument. Highly unlikely to be a new editor, see Special:Permalink/1039694887#Consensus for more behavioural evidence. Jr8825 • Talk 19:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Jr8825's comment, it looks like this is almost certainly a new series of JamesOredan socks (thanks to him for making the connection). Same editing interests, and one of the socks even has a similar name (BeltránSP). All the more reason to run CU and catch other sleepers. Grandpallama (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (at Grandpallama's kind invitation). I won't add much as the situation seems under control and close to being resolved. BaylanSP also edited the article on Theodosius I, a Roman emperor of Spanish background, so that's a bit more evidence for this wider pattern of editing in Spanish topics. The diffs for this can be found in that ANEW report he filed against me at my own accidental encouragement (this is what brought him to the attention of those who blocked him). Avilich (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GeneralNotability, is the behavioral evidence here enough to merge these socks under JamesOredan? If not, it's pretty easy to obtain more (I wrote up my documentation before I was aware of the long-term sockmaster). If possible, linking them will it easier to provide evidence for future socks. Grandpallama (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

10 July 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

I believe the historic and banned sockpuppeter User:JamesOredan, (also look at his long list of socks and at the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesOredan/Archive]]) is back with new socks; i believe these to be: JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa, Bandeirantedopaulo, Norprobr, Venezia Friulano, El Gran Capitán, and Kev31zz. The articles they are obsessed with are always the same with which the old socks were obsessed: Spanish empire, list of largest empires, African admixture in Europe, Expulsion of the Moriscos, Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula; and similary themed. The agenda is always the same: Spanish imperialism and nationalism on one hand, watering down Moorish presence in Spain on the other; they also have animosity towards the Portuguese, the Italians, and the British. An interesting thing to note is this, even tho' the user is obviously Spanish, he sometimes claims not to be: Venezia Friulano claims to be Italian and uses an Italian name (exactly like two old socks of James: Itagnol and Davide Notta) whereas JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa and Bandeirantedopaulo have almost stereotypical Portuguese names (this pattern is the first suspicious thing I have noticed. To attack Italian and Portuguese users, this Spanish sockpuppetter used to have and I think continues to have the habit of pretending to be Italian or Portuguese. Perhaps JamesOredan and SmithGrave were chosen to appear English). Some of these users have been blocked for their behavior, but not for being traced back to JamesOredan, which I believe to be the case, so I still decided to put them here, so we can see if they are part of this same newtork.

Spanish empire stuff

The user is obsessed with making it bigger, wheter it's the map or the number/figures.

  • Old sock Itagnol wanting to use an "anchronistic map" for the Spanish empire because it was there (just to clarify, briefly put there by other socks of JamesOredan like PlusUltraCarlos and SmithGraves, and it was twice agreed in the talk page to remove it ) [267]
  • JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa waging edit war to say it was bigger (began here: [268].
  • Venezia then with map with bigger empire: argument? it was there and "an anochronous map is just better" [269], [270].
  • El Gran Capitàn increasing the size figures [282] and again [283]
  • Also Kev31zz increased the size figures on the two articles, [284], [285]
  • Norprobr increasing the size figures [286]
Genetic and muslim stuff

The obsession here is to water down the African and moorish genetic influence in the Iberian peninsula.

  • Old socks removing map, images, and informations that show Spain being significantly genetically influenced by Africans. RetinB: [287]. ip1: [288]. Old 46.* Yoigo socks: [289], [290]. Jacob34T: [291], [292]
  • Among the many edits Venezia has made, the removal of the map of Iberia, [293], the removal of info on Muslim occupation in Spain [294]. Note that in the edits above and others, the old socks also did stuff to claim that Muslim influence is not really only part of Spain, but also part of Portugal and Italy (which btw is correct, but that's not the point). Similar stuff was done here [295], and is being done here [296], and here [297]. And here is a claim (last line) that Moriscos expelled did not return to Spain, but to other parts of Iberia (Portugal implied) and Italy. [298]
  • Venezia also waged an edit war to water down the Moorish influence on the Mosque–Cathedral of Córdoba, see Talk:Mosque–Cathedral of Córdoba) and waged edit war to remove the informations that Trajan, altough born in Spain, was of Italic lineage (clearly the goal was again to remove non-Spanish related info; first from the body of the article, then from the intro, see two debates I had with Venezia on Talk:Trajan.)
Style and Language

It's typical of these users to cause edit wars on these articles and make personal attacks to users, also based on nationality ("biased against Spain"), and they all play and pretend to follow the rules and falsely claim all the others are violating them, when it's clear they are the disruptors.

  • The original sockpuppeter James Oredan saying that it's the "bias of the English" [299], Portugal too is biased [300]
  • Norprobr says to user:TompaDompa that the ones who agreed to the map of the Spanish empire are "biased Portuguese users". [301] Btw, TompaDompa has also been a target of attacks by Venezia Friulano and JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa.
  • Venezia Friulano says User:R_Prazeres is a muslim user with "an Islamic bias" [302] and and tells me in a long complain why Italians are biased.[303].


Barjimoa (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Mz7, you recently blocked two of the listed suspects at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa. Any comment here?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Seems like it might take a while to delve into this. I will see if I can find some time in the next day or two to look into this. Mz7 (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for the delay in getting to this case; life has been busy. I am looking at this now. Mz7 (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reviewing the evidence presented and doing some additional searching myself, I agree with Barjimoa that Venezia Friulano is a sockpuppet of JamesOredan.
    I will start by noting that JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa and Bandeirantedopaulo are sockpuppets of each other, but I believe they are Red X Unrelated to Venezia Friulano. Similarly, Norprobr is blocked for sockpuppetry, but that user is also Red X Unrelated to Venezia Friulano / JamesOredan. I did not spend any time looking at either El Gran Capitán or Kev31zz because neither account has edited in a long time.
    When I first began looking at this SPI, I was pretty pessimistic that it would lead to anything conclusive—all of the past JamesOredan socks are long stale, and the last detected one was identified in August 2021. It is typically pretty hard to make connections to such long dormant cases.
    1. However, I noticed that Venezia Friulano's account was created and became active in September 2021, shortly after the last JamesOredan sock was identified. The timing of this is suspicious.
    2. Additionally, there are a few behavioral idiosyncrasies that JamesOredan socks exhibit which Venezia Friulano also exhibits. For example, Venezia Friulano always capitalizes the word "Lead" when referring to the lead section of an article, see e.g. [304] and [305] (do a case-sensitive Ctrl+F for "Lead" in the edit summaries). This is an uncommon quirk, and it is one that at least one past JamesOredan sock shared: [306][307][308][309]. There is another interesting peculiarity which I will withhold per WP:BEANS; I've noted it down for checkusers on our private wiki: [310].
    3. Finally, after running a check on Venezia Friulano, I found that pretty much all of their IPs are in ranges that JamesOredan historically used (i.e. ranges that were previously checked when checking JamesOredan socks).
  • In combination with the shared editing interests that Barjimoa pointed out above, it is my belief that Venezia Friulano is an account created by JamesOredan to evade their ban from editing. For this reason, I will be blocking Venezia Friulano indefinitely.  Blocked and tagged, closing. Mz7 (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much for your amazing work Mz7, I'm sorry my request took you so much of your time. Also thanks to Bbb23 for asking you to check the situation. I was about to add new evidence regarding all the users, but since now they are either blocked or inactive I won't go into it and also I trust your judgement. I'll keep a constant eye on these articles and interests to see if new problems arise. Again, thank you and sorry if it absorbed too much time.Barjimoa (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

26 August 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

It's now very easy to recognize these socks since everything is connected. I am restoring the articles changed, vandalised and poisoned by JamesOredan and his many socks. I am positive that User:46.222.104.6, with this edit, proved to be User:Venezia Friulano. This edit on the Trajan page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1172193066) leads me to that conclusion because:

  • 1-it perfectly matches previous edits by Venezia on the Trajan page to remove that very line which has the info that the hometown of Trajan in Spain (Italica) was settled by people from Italy rather than locals (see the history of the Trajan and Italica pages and the talk:Trajan page for these numerous attempts by Venezia). This is a very specific and fallacious thing that only Venezia has argued for (over and over) in the past. It is still part of that goal of making Wikipedia content more "Spanish" and less "non-Spanish" (and in this case less "Italian").
  • 2- I think point one is enough, but, to make it more obvious, this user used the word "Hispano Roman". No one ever used this word except for Venezia, who used it four times in the talk:Trajan page.
  • 3-the timing.

Barjimoa (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

27 August 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

I am very sorry to report all these socks in such a short period of time but they create trouble and are so obvious that I feel like I have to, they are also an obstacle in cleaning the articles vandalised by the network of socks. These are IPs used by the now blocked User:Venezia Friulano, sock of the blocked User:JamesOredan, to evade the permanent block right after it happened. He has already caused another edit war on Trajan's page in Venezia fashion, same agenda, same everything.

In addition to the same shared interest and the timing of their activity, we shall start with the fact that 37.29.246.234 and 46.222.217.76 have seemingly made it clear to be the same user. The user kinda told me here ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barjimoa?markasread=289889858&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-46.222.217.76-20230827135200-What_is_the_problem?) but it was already evident by these edits: in particular, this edit by 37.29.246.234 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1172491809) is the same as this edit by 46.222.217.76 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1172496508).

That 46.222.217.76=37.29.246.234 is both User:Venezia Friulano and 46.222.104.6 is evident from the fact this edit (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1172481308), is the same as this edit by Venezia ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1119688888 ) in turn the same as this edit by 46.222.104.6 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1172193066). I picked one edit by Venezia but there are like many many more of the same kind in the Trajan article (and a couple more by the two peevious IPs). Same detailed thing (very specific) and same fallacious argumentation for it. And as I said before, to make it more obvious, this user used the word "Hispano Roman". No one ever used this word except for Venezia, who used it four times in the talk:Trajan page. Barjimoa (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • It's possible or even plausible the IPs are related to JamesOredan, but after a short spree three weeks ago they've been stale since, including after the protection expired. Blocking would not achieve much at this point. If disruption resumes, file another SPI or preferably request protection at WP:RFPP, as you did on this occasion. Closing. DatGuyTalkContribs 21:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

24 September 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

User:LucenseLugo has recently interacted with User:Venezia Friulano, a sockpuppet of User:JamesOredan, on the spanish empire talk page, where a very disruptive cercle of socks is active, in a concensus like manner. LucenseLugo and Venezia Friulano were the only users making the following arguments (after almost all others, all socks of JamesOredan, were already out):

Interactions in question

Section: map (again)

- During the Iberian Union, Portugal and its colonial territories belonged to the Spanish Habsburg Monarchy (Felipe II, Felipe III, Felipe IV), so I don't find any problem stating that they were territories of the Hispanic Monarchy at that time.
- But more important: It is curious how for the Spanish Empire some want to use a "maximum extension map" instead of an anachronous one despite the fact that the Portuguese Empire, the British Empire or the French colonial Empire (among many others) clearly use anachronous maps.
Very strange, for sure. Venezia Friulano (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, you are very right here. I have checked your point and it's true. All of the big European empires have an anachronous map (in my opinion, as it should be) but the anachronous map for the Spanish Empire is object of dispute for some users? Huh, that seems a little bit sketchy. All articles should be treated equally and anachronous maps show the real historical extent of empires.
Anyways, as it is right now, it shouldn't bother anyone. I have written what was part of Portugal because of the Iberian Union, so there are no claims that Spain used to have Cape Verde, Angola or Mozambique. LucenseLugo (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Section: area

What I denounce is that there are veteran users with a lot of free time (aka TompaDompa) who have shielded articles to avoid being edited by other users, which goes against the essence of Wikipedia.Of course the List of the Largest Empires article is stable and old, but because it's an article that can only be edited by TompaDompa. There have been many attempts to edit the article by other users with alternative measurement sources (for the Spanish Empire and for many other Empires), but in this article his only fetish source Taagepera (1997) prevails, unilaterally deleting all those alternative sources that he doesn't like. The article is in fact an article almost just for Taagapera's views, its just surreal. I even thought that Taagepera could be a relative of his, due to the insane obsession with this specific author, eliminating almost everyone else in the academy.This user is already well known, I am just one of many who have denounced his abuse of power. I'm not writing anything new on Wikipedia Venezia Friulano (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE TompaDompa (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you. It seems there are certain users who think they have more rights for spending their entire free time on Wikipedia, no sorry but that is reserved for administrators, we are all users and we should be treated equally.But for some, they want to keep their edits prevailing and the ones who dare to change anything face instant reversion or even reports to admins just for having a different vision. It's not fair, we all should be treated equally. LucenseLugo (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They agreed on almost everything. Note that the entire debate got started by a LOT of Oredan's socks. In these last discussions they were the only ones left who argued for a anachronous map.

After I put the evidence on the talk page of Spanish Empire and after informing the user of my suspection, LucenseLugo seems to have gone inactive. He is very disruptive as can be seen on the history of his talk page (he removes those messages) and is known for (spanish) nationalist editing, which Venezia Friulano i.e JamesOredan is also known for (as well as for disruptive editing). The User(s) of all of these accounts are/is spanish linguistically. LucenseLugo also knows a lot about wikipedia even though he only joined in january this year. His writing style is almost the same as JamesOredan's (And Venezia's) writing style. Reman Empire (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that even though James has probably got a new sock by now, it would still be good to block the old. Reman Empire (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

09 October 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

I was told in the previous debate it was possibile and in fact plausible some of these were socks of User:Venezia Friulano, one of the many many socks of User:JamesOredan (old evidence back here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JamesOredan/Archive#/editor/89), but we let it go because they were inactive, however I was told to come back if it was needed. Well, the user has again been back at editing despite being permanently blocked...and after I reverted him he messaged me (it's the first IP here) to admit it was him, insult me and say "I will always edit...your blocks and reverts are absolutely in vain...you can now block this account again, no problem" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1179240061). This kind of behaviour has surpassed all limits of decency. These are the most obvious IPs of Venezia/James that I have seen operate, there are surely others however. Can we have a permanent range block of these IPs and the connected users to make sure the indefenitive ban of JamesOredan/VeneziaFriulano is effective? Barjimoa (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Edit: I have added User:Viristo, for it is a very obvious sock of Venezia.

1)He joined 10 days ago to go past the ban.

2)He has the interests as it edited articles that have been very often edited by Venezia and the socks of James: Spaniards (their hostorical backgroun), Italy (because Venezia has an issue with Italy), going after my attempts to revert the edits made by the socks.

3)This edit (Trajan as a Spaniard, (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1179625196) is a very specific thing pushed in the past only by Venezia in the Trajan article (and in the Spanirds article by his socks/ips).

4)This edit on Italy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1179622807) is, on one hand, a removal of references Venezia already removed in the past (the removed part is "central Italy", Venezia does not like the word "Italy". For example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1165943470; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1179214002) and at the same time a recovery of a previous version, word for word, inserted in the past by Venezia. You'll note in the history of the page that Venezia multiple times reintroduced it despite attempts at trimmering it, sometimes against me and sometimes against other users. That peculiar (and weird) sentence "Rome expanded by a process of Romanization" has also been inserted in the past by Venezia in the Spain article.

5)he wages long edit wars other than responding, again typical of him. Barjimoa (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Edit2: added User:188.76.0.252, his first contributions being again how much bigger and how much more powerful the Spanish empire is than Wikipedia wants to admit! Very tipical of all the socks, we already debated the hundreds of edits of this fashion when we blocked Venezia Friulano. It also reintroduced content put there by Venezia in the Classical Guitar page that I had removed, which was again something like highliting the Classical Guitar as a pure Spanish invention, not also French, German or whatever. Again, same agenda, timeline, basically same edits etc. Barjimoa (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit3: I added the IP User:46.6.151.222 who, a short time ago, messaged me to say: 

"Anyway, I will continue editing. All the best. Don't forget James is with an "s" next time :)".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1179656939.

This is a reference to the fact that I previously mispelled JamesOredan as JameOredan. And his IPs continue to persecute me on my talk page. The Viristo sock has been quickly blocked by administrators, so my request left is a range block for the IPs and connected accounts. Barjimoa (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

18 March 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

These are CU-confirmed with each other and there's little doubt that certainly Everton is a sock of Oredon. Update: confirmed also with earlier socks User:DrakeXper and Draslerr. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Drmies (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

15 July 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

I believe the following are socks of User:Venezia Friulano/User:JamesOredan.

1)User:Dreom was created as an immediate continuation of 80.102.210.145, just after the latter IP was blocked for being a sock of JamesOredan. You can see the two edit often the same pages (usually edited by Venezia/James). For example Magellan expedition, Voyages of Christopher Columbus, Genetic history of Italy, and Francis Xavier are pages edited by both Dreom and 80.102.210.145, and the edits have the same scope. One specific proof is that this edit by Dreom (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Francis_Xavier&diff=prev&oldid=1224313658&title=Francis_Xavier&diffonly=1) is essentially the same as this one done by 80.102.210.145 shortly before and reverted (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Francis_Xavier&diff=prev&oldid=1224143522).

2)92:191.197.200 is evidently Dreom, as he edited the Italians article at the same time Dreom did and the other articles he edited have been edited by Venezia/James/Dreom and his socks. For example Rapier has been edited by an IP of his (31.221.156.26). He also throws around the accusation of wp:peacock a lot, especially when it comes to articles related to Italian history and culture, and this is also typical of Venezia/James socks, who claim that articles on Italy, Britain, Portugal and the Muslims are "biased" (Venezia/James hates these four nationalities/groups and is chauvinistic about Spain). For example: the Italophilia page is said to have "peacock" by 80.102.210.145 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italophilia&diff=prev&oldid=1194538210), Dreom deletes British stuff saying it's peacock (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Navy&diff=prev&oldid=1232156805), the Italians page has "peacockry" for 92:191.197.200 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italians&diff=prev&oldid=1233136935).

3)user:Discopleasant, his edit on the culture of Italy page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Culture_of_Italy&diff=prev&oldid=1219654395), is same in scope to others made by Venezia Friulano in that same page that got reverted by me (see here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Culture_of_Italy&diff=prev&oldid=1165905929) and to points Venezia made relentlessly and obsessevely in multiple pages. He is reiterating this by reverting my IP here saying "it's peacock" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Culture_of_Italy&diff=prev&oldid=1234585220). Altough I was not logged in, that is me, I told administrators that I am sometimes forced to edit this way, since Venezia/James literally stalks my account and also comes to personally insult me at my talk page (for which I had it blocked twice). Another thing these socks do is removing the word "Italy" or "Italian" from articles on history and/or replace it with other terminology; Venezia notably did this relenetlessly (see talk:Trajan or also the page culture of Italy). And you can see Discopleasant removed the word "Italy" here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crossing_the_Rubicon&diff=prev&oldid=1232378325), here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rubicon&diff=prev&oldid=1232377637), and "Italian" in his first edit after creation.(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Baldacci&diff=prev&oldid=1219439076).

4)User:LucenseLugo has been noticed to be a sock of User:Venezia Friulano for his usual disruptive agenda and aggressive language already by this user here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Valencian_language&diff=prev&oldid=1181007908&title=Talk%3AValencian_language&diffonly=1) and by this other user here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spanish_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=1173297720&title=Talk%3ASpanish_Empire&diffonly=1). The latter has listed there the evidence needed. LucenseLugo is primarily used by JamesOredan/Venezia Friulano for linguistic chauvinism (changing Catalan names into Spanish names) and "against" Portugal (hence the fake Portuguese name, it's an habit of his to pretend being non-Spanish). Most recently he caused an edit war at the Languages of Spain page. Notice his typical accusation in a mirror to another user here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Valencian_language&diff=prev&oldid=1181009849&title=Talk%3AValencian_language&diffonly=1).

If admins need some of the known IP ranges of Venezia Friuliano/James Oredan to make a check I can provide them. These IPs have been marked or partially rangeblocked multiple times and include 31.221.128., 37.29.151.29, 46.6.189.143, and 80.102.210.145 (plus I am reporting here 92:191.197.200 cause it's evidently Dreom). The problem is that he likely has others.

I have other socks and evidence, but for now I think it's good. Barjimoa (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
As I mentioned in your previous post in WP:ANI that’s already been closed, I’m not the sockpuppet to these accounts, not to mention that I never even edited half the articles you mentioned in your last post, and the articles that I have personally edited as well as the article I’m trying to create don’t seem to match those from the sockpuppet accounts you mentioned. And for the sake of authenticity I hope this sockpuppet investigation is 100% accurate (Discopleasant (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Is this supposed to be a joke or what is really wrong with you? First of all, who is even that guy?
Second, how do I have a Portuguese name if I have A GALICIAN SPANISH NAME? Lucense is the Demonym of Lugo, my hometown. lol.
Third and now to end this, yes please, check my account to see if I do have any connection with this "sockpuppet" ... I have been editing Wikipedia since 2020 with 0 blocks and now a random guy claims that I'm a sockpuppet?
PS: Also check my IP address. It's not even related by numbers or by ISP. Shame on you. LucenseLugo (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most obvious one, his agenda and (aggressive) language is typical of James/Venezia. I and other 2 users have independently realized it's him. His socks are active (and being blocked) since before 2020, some also managed to avoid block for an extensive period of time (Venezia), so that is not an argument. Sufficient evidence has been listed above by the second user who realized it was him (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spanish_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=1173297720&title=Talk%3ASpanish_Empire&diffonly=1) but I have more if needed. For example, putting wrong maps with a bigger Spanish empire at that page and pushing for an "anachronous map" (peculiar term used by these socks) at talk:Spanish Empire was a big thing of Venezia/James and this user did that (you can ask TompaDompa (talk). He has also edited 13 times the Olivenza page, another peculiar one targeted by Venezia/James and his socks, with the usual agenda (I don't know the details of this but apparently some parts of this place are disputed between Portugal and Spain, that's why it's edited by the socks). Other IPs of James/Venezia have edited linguistic pages deleting Catalan/Aragonese names for Spanish ones like LucenseLugo. I can go on, but I think admins can control his language, agenda and also the IPs he has used with this account (altough the IP is one indicator only, keep in mind he uses many, he may be sure about it because he probably has others the admins have not connected to him already). Barjimoa (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, I have spotted several IP's and a couple of users with identical behavior and language. I believe they all stem from a currently vanished user, HardstyleGB, who later on changed his name to TechnicianGB and is now Vanished_user_4afd12r8rh7r5t6r45tr41k8r54dtr56l0e You can see his contributions here: [311]. Notice that this user was charged with having used IP sockpuppets back in 2015 ([312]) and has quite clearly continued to use IP socks ever since (compare [313] and TechnicianGB's contributions in the talk page of "Valencian language" in the days around). As you may check from his editing history, this user had the same behavioral traits as the users above and LucenseLugo in particular:
1) A tendency to promote Spanish chauvinism (TechnicianGB: [314], [315]; [316]; VeneziaFriulano: [317], among others in Talk:Power_(international_relations), as well as [318] and many others in Talk:Spanish_Empire; LucenseLugo: [319] and many others in Spanish Empire). This was noted by other users ([320]). TechnicianGB even describes himself as a nationalist in the Spanish wiki: [321].
2) Agressive language. This should be pretty obvious from LucenseLugo's latest contributions, but here are some additional examples ([322], [323]).
3) A tendency to edit warring (LucenseLugo: [324], [325]). In fact, the majority of LucenseLugo's edits have been reverted.
4) An obsession with deleting names in co-official languages of Spain and substituting them for their Spanish equivalent or, alternatively, to make the Spanish name appear first (TechnicianGB: [326], [327], [328], [329], [330], [331], [332], [333], [334], [335], [336], [337], [338], [339], [340], [341] and many, many others; LucenseLugo: [342], [343], [344], [345], [346], [347], [348], [349], [350]).
5) An obsession with trying to make Catalan and Valencian look like different languages, thereby endorsing a highly pseudoscientific doctrine (LucenseLugo: [351], [352], [353], [354], [355]; TechnicianGB: [356], [357], among many others). Notice that the edit summaries are almost identical (both users justify deleting the information on Catalan/Valencian by arguing that "this can be easily reached by clicking...). That is also the case of the following edits: [358], [359], [360], with the "it is the only official name" reasoning.
6) Same mistakes in English, including the use of the verb "to put" as if it were a synonym of "to add" (TechnicianGB: [361] or [362], among many others; LucenseLugo: [363]; VeneziaFriulano: [364], [365], [366], [367]), use of "edition" instead of "edit" (LucenseLugo: [368]; TechnicianGB: [369], [370], [371], [372], [373]; VeneziaFriulano: [374]; JamesOredan: [375], [376], [377], [378], [379]) and “over” instead of “about” (VeneziaFriulano: ([380], LucenseLugo: [381]).
7) Excessive reliance on official and legal, rather than, say, peer-reviewed or academic, sources, and, related to the latter, a wrong understanding of what the Spanish constitution says about co-official languages. Both LucenseLugo and TechnicianGB seem to think that the Spanish constitution mentions the co-official languages of Spain, when in fact it only mentions Spanish (LucenseLugo: [382] [383]; TechnicianGB: [384] and many others).

Additionally, Technician/Hardstyle and LucenseLugo also share an interest in religion ([385], [386], [387], [388], [389], [390]) and a tendency to erase non-convenient messages from their talk page ([391], [392], [393], [394], [395]).

Here are some of the (more than possible) extra candidates:
a) [396] Same language as LucenseLugo/TechnicianGB/HardstyleGB.
b) Farell37 Like TechnicianGB/HardstyleGB, he shows interest in editing articles on Spanish climate trying to make the country look milder than it is. He seems to have corrected the use of "to put" that I described above, but he still makes some mistakes: ([397] and [398], for example) and uses IP sockpuppets with the same ISP and range as the one I listed under the letter a ([399], [400], [401], [402]).
c) On the English wiki, this IP ([403]) and others from the same range have been substituting "Catalan" for "Spanish" here and there. It corresponds to this IP from the Spanish wiki: [404]. Just like LucenseLugo, TechnicianGB and HardstyleGB, he unjustifiedly deleted several non-Spanish names from a few Spanish towns claiming they are "non-existing" (sic) ([405]), he tried to make Valencian and Catalan appear as separate languages ([406]) and, just like Farell37, Venezia Friulano, JamesOredan and HardstyleGB/TechnicianGB, shows interest in climate ([407]).
d) This user: [408] and this other user: [409] from the same IP range. The latter shares common interests with the user I listed under the letter c, which is clearly connected to TechnicianGB/HardstyleGB, whereas the former clearly acted as a sockpuppet supporting LucenseLugo's contribution in the page Valencian language.
e) This user here: [410] Compare his comment (in which he suggests deleting the names of Spain in co-official languages and, if not, to use the dual naming for Catalan/Valencian) with LucenseLugo's contributions in other places (in which he tries to delete names in languages other than Spanish and tries to split Catalan/Valencian in two). Notice that both have misinterpreted the Spanish consititution in the same manner: both of them think that the Spanish constitution mentions languages other than Spanish (as mentioned asbove: [411], [412]), just as HardstyleGB or TechnicianGB did ([413]). Notice, too, that LucenseLugo's reaction to my response to that user was almost like a confession. In spite of the fact that I never mentioned him in my answer to that IP ([414]), he came immediately, after more than a month of inactivity, to dispute what he saw as an accusation of sockpuppetry towards him ([415]) (remember I did not mention him at all in the comment he was answering to).
I still have some further evidence (this person is not quite good at hiding), but I also have a life. I guess this should be enough.Agpshi (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing further evidence, and yes the edits by these other accounts and IPs scream James/Venezia. For further reference, the blocked sock User:DrakeXper (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/DrakeXper&target=DrakeXper&offset=&limit=500) had several similar edits on the climate stuff, another obession of his.Barjimoa (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Climate does indeed seem to be a connection between all these socks. TechnicianGB was very interested in this topic and more particularly in the extent of arid climate, as opposed to Mediterranean climate, in Spain (adding diffs soon). And so were not just DrakeXper ([416]), but also JamesOredan (who was the creator of this map: [417] and Venezia ([418]).Agpshi (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I ask for any kind of sock/IP check or whatsoever done to my account. Just because another user/users have done similar edits to mines, it doesn't mean we are the same. In fact, I didn't edit the page Spanish Empire since late 2023 and I've actually only wanted to seek a consensus between other users as I saw the other guy got blocked, probably one of this "Venezia" guy sockpuppet or whatever his name is. I have replied to you in that manner because you accuse me of being someone else. I have never tried to pushpin nothing into the page Spanish Empire and I'm just making sourced and neutral edits in very different articles. What's your point?

As for @Agpishi: he just wrote a ton of BS as has a massive bias against me, since I'm one of the only few users that notices his extremely biased Catalan-nationalist agenda, I can share here lots of proofs but this is not the case. Actually, that 1XX. IPs and the one inactive account I've had problems with in the past, really seem to be Agpishi. Once this is done, I will maybe fill a sockpuppet case for Agpishi. Oh Agpishi, are you sure have a life? It doesn't look like that! Once again, yes, I really want any admin to check my IP and to see if I'm related to your conspiracy theory of that chain of users. LucenseLugo (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also would like to do a specific answer to the ridiculous claim made above by @Agpishi:
"LucenseLugo has a tendency to edit warring (in fact, the majority of LucenseLugo's edits have been reverted);"
Oh really? Well, we can check my contributions history then:
LucenseLugo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Except for YOUR reverts because you hate me as I am against your very very biased propaganda (which you want to put without any consensus, nor sources and etc) I don't see my edits being very reverted. Strange, huh?
PS. I have also manually checked all of these users and IPs you claim they are me as well. First of all, we don't even share the same IP range. With most of them I don't even share the same ISP (and as far as I'm aware my ISP is a very, very common one) well this is a task for the administrators. So we can get things cleared out.
If according to you I'm always involved in edit wars, reverts, blah blah blah... why did I never been reported? Why did I never been blocked? Oh yeah... just because you are the only one that has a clear bias against me. I didn't know "Barjimoa" until now, he says I'm a sock of "Venezia Friulano" / "James Oredean" and you claim I'm a sock of 3 other users? Did I count well? And you made some kind of conspirational theory claiming I'm using 20 different IP ranges with different ISPs...
Once again, I really wait for an admin to check my account. And after that measures will be taken, don't worry. In fact, I have already compiled 2 different IP ranges and 1 Wikipedia user that acts, writes and edits exactly the same pages as you do. And guess what? He's the only one (besides you) who had several confrontations with me. Hmmmm, looks suspicious from here. You'll see it soon! LucenseLugo (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot threaten anyone Venezia, I know accusation in a mirror is your forte, but it's blatant who you are and the fact that you are in bad faith. Leave User:Agpshi alone, your behavior and bullying is annoying and morally awful. With him and me it's now 4 different users who have independently come to the conclusion that you are James/Venezia and 3 have provided sufficient evidence. You really expect to violate all rules with armies of socks, prevaricate over others, and have no response from multiple people? Believe it or not there are good users who follow the rules, luckily for wikipedia and unluckily for you.Barjimoa (talk)
LucenseLugo: you should know that Wikipedia has a policy of [personal attacks]. I strongly recommend you to read that document. As you may check, personal attacks include this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joan_Ro%C3%ADs_de_Corella&diff=prev&oldid=1236413681, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mystery_Play_of_Elche&diff=prev&oldid=1236413516 and most of what you said here.
Most of your edits have been reverted, that is true. This is, for example, the third time you tried to make the same edit in the page Galicia (Spain): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=prev&oldid=1181013026, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=prev&oldid=1224445263, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=prev&oldid=1236414186, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galicia_(Spain)&diff=prev&oldid=1236414186. That is quite close to being a long-time edit warring.
As for whether the IPs above may match the one you are using, everyone has access to many IPs and internet providers over the course of a day. But if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Agpshi (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barjimoa: I have seen that "James Oredan" has caused a lot of trouble with his socks in Wikipedia and more specially to you. Your page was even protected because of him. I don't know you, you have to understand why I have the right to not to answer you in a friendly manner because you have directly started accusing me of being a sock of that user, you have never assumed good faith nor even tried to ask me anything. Anyways, I didn't break any kind of personal attack though, because I didn't insult nor say anything disrespectful, just that I'm pissed with your attitude.
Yes, one IP asked me once if I am related to "Venezia Friulano" and I told him not, I don't even know who that is. Reman Empire said I was acting like "Venezia Friulano" in the Spanish Empire talk page, where I've said to him that he can fill any report he wants because I'm no one's sockpuppet. I didn't edit that page for almost 1 year and my last comment was in the talk page trying to reach a consensus. And now you come suddenly after 7-8 months to say this?
Also, your "online rival" as it seems that guy is, edits lots of pages that are completely unrelated to my edits. I have been an user for 4 years, and just look at the types of pages I edit and compare them to James, Venezia or whatsoever his name is. What is even more ridiculous is @Agpishi:'s claims now saying a kind of conspiracy theory telling I'm a vast range of IP and 3 other users, and none of these IPs nor users are even blocked from the Wikipedia, so now who am I supposed to be? A sock of that James guy? A sock of these other users or IPs which none of them are blocked? It just doesn't make any sense. And don't say I'm "bullying" that user because he is literally HUNTING my edits to revert them or to try to discredit them, just to push his clear Catalan Nationalistic propaganda. Proof: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusión:Agpshi
Since other users have said this to him in the Spanish Wikipedia, he now thinks I'm some kind of sock of some kind of chain or... only he knows from who. And now he took advantage of this SPI to say I'm also this James Oredan guy, but once again, just compare the pages I edit and the pages these socks edit. He only wants to see me blocked because he thinks I'm some kind of user (or users) he has problems with in the Spanish Wikipedia. But I'm not. In fact, I have barely done 20 edits in the Spanish Wikipedia.

@Agpshi: It's clear you are very biased against me. But it seems you have an "historical" dispute against other user (or users, I don't know) mainly in the Spanish Wikipedia, as you have proven above with your supposed "investigation" (you have even linked 2015 edits when I'm an user from 2020 and you are as well an user from 2020, so that makes me think you are an older user is now using a newer account) and 80% of your Wikipedia edits are in the Spanish Wikipedia where a lot of users have claimed that you are very biased when it comes to editing.
In fact, you're repeating again the lie that claims "most of LucenseLugo's edits have been reverted" (just check my history of contributions) but that's indeed true for your account in the Spanish Wikipedia, as it can be proven here: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribuciones/Agpshi
I have read your duck example. Once again, it doesn't apply to me. Who am I exactly if that example is someone that gets blocked and then a 2nd account comes to directly engage in the same topic? I have never been blocked from Wikipedia. I have never used another account. I'm no one's sockpuppet. I sorry if you hate me but I will still try to make Wikipedia a better place and thus fight against your biased edits based on your political agenda.
Also don't make me talk about personal attacks because just 2 months ago you made a personal attack against me in the talk page of Languages of Spain with a prime example mentioned in the Wikipedia WP:NPA examples.
Why are you linking twice the same edit on the Galicia wikipage? I did 2 edits in late 2023 and I did another one over the past 24 hours. In the Infobox, only OFFICIAL names and NAMES THAT ARE COMMON IN ENGLISH have to appear. In fact, it was me who added "Galiza" in the first paragraph of the page Galicia (Spain) so even if it's not official, I didn't remove the fact in Galician some people use it as for example most of the Bloque Nacionalista Galego voters use it and that's around 20% of the Galician population. But even the official motto in Galicia is ' Galicia Calidade '.
And this is my last message in this ridiculous claim. I'll wait for the admins to check my account. So you will both see if I'm telling the truth or not. I am not sure about the other accounts mentioned by Barjimoa though, as I don't know and I don't care about who that James Oredan / Venezia Friulano guy/girl/person is. LucenseLugo (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely because I know James/Venezia well I can recognize him/you. And I don't believe for one second that User:Agpshi is "biased", as I said above this is an accusation James/Venezia and his socks threw around A LOT against all the good-faith-users who opposed his persistent vandalism and prevarication/gaslighting techniques. The only thing I agree with you on is that this is getting redundant, we have made our cases.Barjimoa (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller Is there a way to get a admin to check my account and see that I have nothing to do with the person being investigated here? And judging by the interactions above it seems I'm not the only one who's been falsely accused of being a "sockpuppet". I'd feel more comfortable editing after being proven innocent of this. (Discopleasant (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]
LucenseLugo has been noticed to be a sock of James Oredan/Venezia Friulano by 4 different users and there is overwhelming evidence against him, so I don't see how he is "falsely accused of being a sockpuppet", it's routine for this user to create a mess and pretend he is not who he is even in face of massive evidence. Your case is different because there is less material, but still....I have already pointed out that: your edits in culture of Italy and other pages on ancient Roman stuff are similar to his in scope; you have a record of randomly removing the words "Italy", "Italian", "Italian descent"; to justify your edits on Italy-stuff you have used the argument "it's peacock". These are very specific things Venezia Friuliano and his socks used to do. Your are continuing to do these kind of removals on pages on Italy and ancient Roman stuff and your last edit on Istria here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Istria&diff=prev&oldid=1235512638) is similar in scope to what Venezia did and argued here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mutilated_victory&diff=prev&oldid=1167639848). This is why I think you are him, your record and that of Venezia Friulano overlap on these very specific things. I suspect the timing of the decision is my fault because I have reported many accounts, but what was I supposed to do?Barjimoa (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“They overlap on two articles so it must be the same person” logic. Anyways, just let an admin do an IP check to debunk all your accusations. In every post you disregarded WP:AGF. Lemme ask you this? Did said blocked editor edit Curia Julia? Did they edit Mauryan Empire? Because those two are remotely related… another question, does this look as a constructive edit to you? Or does it actually border WP:PEACOCK, answer this without any false “sockpuppet” accusations. And also worth mentioning is you made this edit on an article you never edited only to revert my edit without any solid explanation. Another one like this and it could be interpreted as WP:HOUND (Discopleasant (talk) 07:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]
It's not just the overlap of edits on articles, it's the agenda, removal of words "Italy" and "Italian", the argumentation of "Peacock" used. These are very specific things of Venezia. Venezia Friulano and other socks also edited other articles a lot to throw off admins (I believe Venezia atrated with astronomy), but the things they really cared about were issues concerning Spain (languages, climate, history), Italy (removals of word Italian, Roman stuff, genetics), history (of Portugal, England, muslims). Some dealt with everything, others were specialised in one thing. You seem to fall in the Italy category. I have restored your removal at Curia Iulia but at Istria and David Baldacci it was someone else, so probably these random removals don't look good to others as well.Barjimoa (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, and obviously the timing is not an accident, User:Claudio di Roma has just been blocked for being a sock of James/Venezia and causing trouble at Talk:Spain. This time he was pretending to be Italian and playing boths sides of an argument to cause a flame (he was complaining to users in order to remove something HE had introduced with previous socks). He trolled 4 users there, including me. He also probably has had another sock thrown into that mix to cause even more confusion and flame, and I reported it to an admin separately. I don't know exactly why he did this, but it's probably due to this investigation and wanted to cause a distraction from this. Barjimoa (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bro’s now talking about a conspiracy theory rather than answering the question. Again, does this look as a constructive edit to you? Or does it actually border WP:PEACOCK, And why did you follow my edits on an article you never edited before just to re-add this redundancy which could be interpreted as WP:HOUND? Again, answer this without any false “sockpuppet” accusations or any of your conspiracy theory. (Discopleasant (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]
@LucenseLugo Hey, you’re not the only one he’s falsely accusing for being a sockpuppet. He believes there’s a conspiracy to remove certain letters as well as following my edits to revert them (WP:HOUND). Since he doesn’t have a solid argument he resorts to doing this. (Discopleasant (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]
This space should be for you to defend yourselves/yourself in face of the evidence I (and also others in the case of LucenseLugo) have presented. Instead the suspected sock LucenseLugo has personally attacked the other user and now you are doing it with me: it is not a conspiracy theory; everyone can go at User:Claudio di Roma and Talk:Spain and see what's going on there. I already said what I had to say on the "peacock" thing. The things you say are peacock are not peacock, my edit there is a normal trim/rephrasing, other than that the throw around of this word it's a strong and specific indicator for these socks when it's claimed on the history of Italy, Portugal, UK. On the removal of "Italy"/"Italian" thing, you provide fallacious arguments for pushing what to me is Venezia's/James' agenda and in any case these are wrongful edits. For example, the fact that Curia Iulia is called the same in both Latin and Italian is in no way an argument for removing the Italian translation for a place in Italy, it's logical to have that "Latin and Italian: Curia Iulia". How can you remove this kind of mention and consider it peacock I will never understand.Barjimoa (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user has went out of control. Now he claims "4 users" associate me to that troll sockpuppet chain when it's actually 2 users (including himself) and 2 trolls, one of them an IP and an user which are the same person. And he says he has "solid" arguments. That's senseless.
It's funny because I have never tried to make Spain look anything greater or better than it is, my last edit in the page Spanish Empire was made many months ago and in the talk page, trying to reach a consensus. Neither about Italy nor climates nor anything I have been FALSELY accused for.
Now he just got trolled by another new sock but he's still here insisting we are sockpuppets. Once again, I ask for any admin to check my account. I don't have anything in common with any other user. He just sees socks of that Venezia guy everywhere. LucenseLugo (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing yourself between your socks, this account you are using has not been accused of dealing with Italy, but with Language, Catalan stuff and Portugal. Then it came up that suspected socks connected to you have pushed at climate-related articles the same agenda pushed by confirmed socks of James/Venezia. Also, again, please stop personally attacking the other users, they are not trolling. If you add my evidence and theirs it's overwhelming stuff, even if you have in some way managed to avoid IPs ranges associated with James/Venezia, that's why I say that in your case I am 100% certain. I always said it's 4 including me, one is an IP, still even that noticed this. Barjimoa (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may not have edited anything about climate, but you are soooooo obviously the same user as TechnicianGB/HardstyleGB (who did edit extensively on that topic) that the connection is not hard to establish.--Agpshi (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop your personal attacks against me for the 10th time? Don't you realize your hypocrisy?? You have never assumed good faith for any of my edits (WP:AGF) but just directly accused me of being a sockpuppet of a chain of accounts of a deranged troll that had hundreds of socks and who edits different pages except because I had a direct encounter with him in 1 or 2 pages and I didn't even agree with that sock? I have been here for many years and I have never had any block nor real hard arguments with anyone.
Don't you realize that what you say doesn't even make sense? I didn't edit either anything related to Portugal except for adding new sources and the correct number of kms in the wikipage of the Spanish - Portuguese border and I have some older edits in the page Olivenza which is a target for Portuguese irredentists just as Gibraltar is for Spanish irredentists. Territories that have had historical disputes but 0 disputes nowadays.
Dude, of course I am editing pages about languages of Spain because Spain has 7 official languages. And I come from a region with a regional language and I live in a region with another regional language. Once again, go ask any admin to review my account. I don't even know who that James / Venezia is but you only attack me saying I'm a sock. And yes, that IP is a troll from a chain of IPs disrupting several Wikipages in late 2023 (I can even show the edit diffs) and you are using one of his arguments to say that's another user who accused me of being that Venezia guy. Look, I'll stop posting in this nonsense. You might have your history with that guy but leave me alone, I'm not him, can't you understand?


PLEASE WIKIPEDIA ADMINS, check my account, IP, iSP, device or whatsoever you want and it will be all cleared out. I'm alteady tired of the false accusations and the repeated personal attacks made by the user Barjimoa. LucenseLugo (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost I hope admins look at the evidence we have listed, at the agenda and language, at the fact that 4 different users including me recognized this one as James/Venezia. Also, if he is so sure on the IP range perhaps he may be using IPs that are not in the ranges I listed and therefore these others should be noted as well. I agree we have made our cases at this, but I have never made personal attacks against James/Venezia despite being insulted by him, including at my talk page by random IPs, trolled by his socks (just yesterday at talk:spain) etc. etc. I start by assuming good faith always, in face of evidence I stop and report. On the other hand this one has actually attacked me and the other 3 users who noticed it was him (one is a troll, one is paranoid, one is biased against him etc). I hope everyone can see the gaslighting and where is the hypocrisy. My patience has really been put to the test with these infinite socks, but I always try to focus on substance and evidence and this cannot be denied by anyone.Barjimoa (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say one is paranoid, another one is biased, another one is a troll... I have just said Agpshi is biased (which I still keep based on his edits in the English but specially the Spanish wiki since he outed himself out when he posted these links saying I was another sock of another one) so I have noticed Agpishi is more likely the same IP as that 1XX. Or the 7X. Which all have the same ISP and know way too much about Wikipedia (one thing I've even said to one of these socks last year, he knew more about editing than me, a 3 year old user at that time) I'm not accusing exaclty Agpishi now but I'm taking my freedom to do it as he related me with other users, anyways, that will be another SPI I will fill with evidence in the Spanish Wiki because that troll from that IP chain has a globally banned account for vandalism and it was always related with Valencian and Catalan stuff. So we are both "chasing" different socks.
Once again, I'm not that freaking James Venezia or whatsoever his nicks are. I have seen the talk page you've mentioned and I agree with what one user has said, someone has to be really pathetic to be creating 99999 Wikipedia accounts to come here to waste their time whilst doing disruptive edits and insulting other users. I understand you have a past with that guy. But for God's sake, it's not me. I don't even have 400 edits in 4 years. Sometimes I even stop editing Wikipedia for entire months. I'm not that pathetic sockpuppet. You will see after the CU is done. LucenseLugo (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really believe that everyone does the same kind of things you do?--Agpshi (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


User:Doug Weller, sorry for posting it down there, I did not know I could not answer. I was asking if you have looked at the theory of James/Venezia being TechnicianGb & co., and TechnicianGB & co. being LucenseLugo? It is evidence posted in Agpshi's comments here, that I have not included in my top comment.Barjimoa (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are using the conspiracy theory of Agpshi saying I'm an user from 2012 whose last edit was in 2022 and that's currently unblocked and vanished?
Okay, then do another CU for my account to see if I'm related to that other user as well.
I'm not related to any sock as the CU clerk has proven. Now you try to say I'm another vanished unblocked user just because I have edited some similar pages which were edited by that user some years ago? Jesus Christ... sure, do another CU so you will see once again I'm no one's sockpuppet!!! LucenseLugo (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CU check proved nothing. We can never claim that. To quote a guide: "checkuser can't prove a negative - anyone asking to be checked is pretty darn sure they won't get caught; we can't tell if that means they're innocent or simply smarter than the tool." Doug Weller talk 10:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the sockmaster (James Oredan) and his dozens or hundreds of sockpuppets it doesn't seem the tool is that easy to beat.
I'm sure I'm not any other user because I'm myself, why would I need another account if my account is completely clear of blocks. I didn't even have had an 1 hour block nor any real big argument.
I wish I had that old account these 2 users now claim it's me, as it looks unblocked. Why would I use a much newer account with few edits if I had in my hand the chance to use one made 12 years ago with thousands of edits which is completely unblocked?
It doesn't make any sense. I've neither had any direct interaction with none of these users except for once with "Venezia Friulano" when I didn't know he was a sock... It's just that Barjimoa refuses to think I'm not related to any other account and wants to relate me to someone else.
Thank you for your CU and for proving I'm not related, I was tired of this harassment saying I'm a sock. That was all Barjimoa, now you see that neither me nor @Discopleasant: are related to any sockpuppets. Just as we told you from day one. Doing related edits to other users don't make us sockpuppets. LucenseLugo (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LucenseLugo I tell you CU can’t prove you are not a sock and your reply thanks me for proving you aren’t a sock? You need to stop posting here. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just said thanks for the CU itself.
Nevermind, I was just tired and felt already harassed because I was being constantly called a sockpuppet of someone unrelated to me and who I don't even know. Nothing else.
Got you, this is my last message on this page. Goodbye. LucenseLugo (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

I have blocked CU User:Dreom and two socks of theirs. I'll be taking further action later, perhaps tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind. This should be closed now. Doug Weller talk 06:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC) No one should post here unless they meet the criteria. I ran another CU this moorning and found nothing else.[reply]

10 August 2024

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Doug Weller talk 13:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Confirmed  Blocked and tagged

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JamesOredan/Archive&oldid=1240095179"