Samira819 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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

Very similar, semi-consecutive or overlapping edits on the same articles, all with the same poor grammar, dubious sourcing (or lack thereof), and promoting the same POV: e.g. compare [1] and [2] at Wadai War, or [3] and [4], [5] at Karamanli dynasty, etc. In this edit, Las davas added an unsourced image which Samira819 had uploaded to Commons 3 minutes earlier (see here on Commons).

The creation of the Las davas account would coincide with a string of reverts of Samir819's edits in late March 2023. Samira819 made a few edits after this, but Las davas was more active. Notably, Samira819 created an unsourced article, Djerba war, on 12 May, which Las davas then edited two minutes after its creation (see article history) and which they immediately promoted in another article ([6]).

Very soon after Las davas was blocked today (May 18), Samira819 resumed editing ([7]) in an article that Las davas had been editing in a similar way ([8]).

Other examples of similarities:

• Compare edit summary and style of [9] and [10] at Libu (and this at Karamanli dynasty)
• Pasting links to the same site either in edits or edit summaries ([11] and [12]).
• Style of commenting on talk pages is also similar, such as posting links over multiple lines without really explaining much (e.g. compare [13] and [14]) or pinging users repeatedly in one-line replies (e.g. compare [15], [16], and [17] with [18]).

Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC) R Prazeres (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Confirmed, and blocked. Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Tagged, closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Same as user:Las davas, already indef blocked Lone-078 (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oh sorry, it seems I filed another report nearly simultaneously (for Jamalie7, below). If it should be combined with the report above somehow, let me know. R Prazeres (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: this new edit looks very much like the type of POV edit the sockpuppeteer would do. R Prazeres (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked, closing. Courcelles (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Jamalie7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Historian loverr (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Poiupoiu80 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hanno 67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Similar editing style, POV, and timing on the same articles. Samira819 was recently blocked for simultaneous use of sockpuppet account Las Davas. Evidence:

• Adding very similar WP:OR on the same page (attempting to portray the war incorrectly as a Senussi "victory"), with a vague URL inserted as alleged source: [19] (Samira) and [20] (Jamalie). And more recently, here Jamalie is repeating the same thing again, this time citing exactly the same url for the non-reliable source (onwar.com) that Samira819 used.

• Re-adding the same content that Las Davas added previously to the same article: [21] and [22]. The wording is based on the infobox of First Barbary War, but they've also modified it in the exact same way ("Usa" instead of "America").

• Same habit of pinging editors multiple times unnecessarily: compare [23] (and more recently [24] and [25]) with e.g. Las Davas ([26], [27]) and Samira ([28]).

Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also adding Historian loverr. Not as clear as Jamalie7, but made a very similar POV edit as Las Davas on the same article: see [29] and [30] (both incorrectly changing "defeat" result to "victory"). R Prazeres (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm adding Poiupoiu80, clearly a related account too: Poiupoiu80 uploaded a non-free image to Commmons (see upload time here), which Jamalie7 then added to a Wikipedia article 3 minutes later ([31]). Also, similar edits with disruptive POV deletion, including at Libu ([32]), like Based.libyan and Las Davas. R Prazeres (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Now adding Hanno 67, brand-new account making edits with similar POV as Las davas and the others on some of the same articles (e.g. [33]). R Prazeres (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Additional evidence for Hanno 67: Poiupoiu80 made this POV edit at Septimius Severus that was reverted, and Hanno 67 tried essentially the same thing again a few days later here. R Prazeres (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latest update: Jamalie7 is still active and, in further evidence of WP:BLOCKEVADE, just tried to reinsert the same baseless claim that Las Davas inserted previously at Karamanli dynasty (compare [34] and [35]). Like Las Davas, they cited vague sources (usually bare URLs) that, upon verification, do not support the claim at all. They even used the same specific yet vague edit summary that Las Davas did (e.g. [36] and [37]). Really hoping the backlog clears up so someone can have look at this one; it looks pretty blatant and it's been ongoing for weeks now. R Prazeres (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just an update about Group 3 (below): based on Historian loverr's recent edits at First Barbary War, I don't think this account is related to the other groups after all. Historian loverr's may be disruptive (they've been reported at WP:AN/EW), but they seem to be pushing something different from the original sockmaster here (and from the recent sock account Jamalie7) and their talk page behaviour differs as well. R Prazeres (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  In progress Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Group 1 is  Confirmed directly to Samira819 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and consists of:

• Jamalie7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Group 2  Highly likely to each other:

• Hanno 67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Poiupoiu80 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Group 3  Confirmed to each other:

• Historian loverr (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Aylan2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Group 2 and Group 1 share similar geolocation. Group 3 seems  Unrelated based on geolocation. However, some of the IPs used by the first two groups are marked as proxies.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation on whether all the groups are connected. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Groups 1 and 2 were already blocked. Group 3 is blocked by me for being sockpuppets internally and for DE overall, plus the CU finding. Closing case. Courcelles (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello 09761 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Yet another account clearly from the same user, editing on the same topic.

After an initial seemingly unrelated edit at Karamanli dynasty, they immediately resumed the same discussion on the same topic that the previously blocked accounts were pursuing at Talk:Karamanli dynasty (you can see the comments of previous socks, Las Davas and Jamalie7, plastered over that page, with the endless stream of quotes and references that they seem to barely understand).

Also continuing the same very specific talk page behaviour; in addition to the poor writing, they constantly ping me in every response, even after I asked them directly not to ([38]), which is something very specific to this sockmaster.

Honestly, it looks like they're being more cautious at the moment, but their edits are still of very low quality and they clearly persist in making sockpuppet accounts instead of addressing the issues raised with them previously. This draft that they've begun to write on their own consists again entirely of the same WP:OR that Las Davas and Jamalie7 promoted at Karamanli dynasty, which borders on WP:HOAX territory (by constantly citing sources that do not support the claims made). R Prazeres (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I am a checkuser, not a clerk. This case is currently awaiting a clerk to endorse or decline the request. As an opinion only, I suggest this may be suitable for a checkuser; that is, I think this could be endorsed. --Yamla (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am a checkuser as well, so I’ll just say  Confirmed and blocked. Courcelles (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And it’s a direct match to Jamalie7, for anyone working the case above. Courcelles (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 165.16.20.39 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 165.16.21.114 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 41.254.66.152 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Clearly the return of serial sockpuppeteer Samira819, without registering this time. These are the two IPs I noticed, there may be others. Evidence:

• Adding the same low-quality, POV-pushing material on generally the same articles as the sockmaster, continuing the habit of citations to bare urls that rarely support what they're adding, and often edit-warring. E.g. see their recent edits at Garamantes that are discussed at Talk:Garamantes#August 2023, or these recent edits at Libu, this at Battle of Djerba, etc etc.

• Even clearer evidence is their behaviour on talk page discussions: they make repetitive small, consecutive comments that consistently ping another editor over and over again, a behaviour I've only seen with Samira819 and their sock accounts. E.g. look at User talk:165.16.20.39 and Talk:Garamantes#August 2023 and compare with the old sock accounts responding on Talk:Karamanli dynasty (a page entirely occupied by discussions between me and their sock accounts, with the exception of Realityishere) or on User talk:Jamalie7, Talk:Libu#Short_description, Talk:War of Attrition, etc.

R Prazeres (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Adding a third IP (41.254.66.152), judging by this comment which can only refer to these edits by the first listed IP. R Prazeres (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• IPs blocked for a while, two consistent targets semied for a while. Case closed. Courcelles (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another possible sockpuppet of this long-running sockpuppeteer. Exact same POV (Libyan nationalist view of history) and same poor English. More specifically:

• The familiar tactic of citing bare URLs to sources of unclear reliability and/or that don't support the added material, especially for military history, e.g.: [39], [40]. In this edit, the source even says the opposite of their claim.
• Creating WP:FRINGE articles with a clear POV is also familiar; see Libyan Amazon article (now nominated for deletion). It seems worse than usual, but the previous socks did edit frequently on ancient history pages like Libu and Garamantes, so it's within their traditional topics of interest.
• And, of course, the same pattern of pinging editors at every single reply on talk pages, like this discussion. (Although, interestingly, they seem to have avoided doing that with me specifically on my talk page.)

R Prazeres (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC) R Prazeres (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fullofdino has been continuing to create more poorly-sourced, potentially WP:OR articles on seemingly non-notable topics relating to Libya's history, the latest including Tripoli Republic, Spanish Bombardment of Tripoli, and Banu Majris Dynasty. (See the talk pages of sockpuppet Las Davas and sockmaster Samira819 for past examples of these poor-quality article creations being deleted or moved to draftspace.)
And more of the same non-stop pinging of editors on a talk page, even after being asked to stop, here. (For an extensive example of this past behaviour, see discussions between myself and socks Hello 09761, Jamalie7 and Las Davas at Talk:Karamanli dynasty.) R Prazeres (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Confirmed Blocked and tagged Courcelles (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Creations nuked. Case closed. Courcelles (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Jake106meme (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

I've been wondering about this one for a while: some differences from previous Samira819 socks (such as using proper citations), but lots of similarities and it's possible the sockmaster is aware of this SPI archive by now and has tried to improve some of their habits slightly.

• Editing clearly similar topics: Libyan history articles like Banu Thabit, Ottoman Tripolitania, etc, all edited by previous socks, and related articles.
• Similar type of WP:OR where they cite a random source but their explanation is vague and talks about what the authors "seem" to say; e.g. [41], [42], and [43], compare for example with this talk page message by previous sock where they also unhelpfully talk about refs in a vague way without really finding direct support in them (and there's lots more of that on that talk page).
• The familiar unnecessary pinging when replying to comments: see their user talk page for example, where they ping me every time, although it's not as extreme as the previous socks. For examples of previous sock behaviour, see the repetitive pinging at User talk:Jamalie7 or by the many socks who commented throughout Talk:Karamanli dynasty.
• The last major sock, Fullofdino, created an article for "Libyan Amazon" (about supposed ancient Libyan Amazons), which was subsequently deleted as a hoax/fringe fabrication. I can't find the deletion discussion, but see notice of it here. Jake106meme just made this edit which suggests they'd like to create or encourage the creation of a Libyan Hercules article, which would almost certainly fall in the same category of hoax/fringe.

At minimum, this looks like a user following the same pattern of POV editing, if it's not simply the latest iteration of Samira819's many socks. R Prazeres (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, update:

• Jake106meme seems to be insisting that there's such a thing as a true and separate "Libyan Hercules" (see last bullet point above) even after being faced with what reliable sources say; see Talk:Sardus.
• Jake106meme is also creating stub articles about Libyan history topics with very dubious content and notability (e.g. Balaaza-Warshefana War, Franco-Senussi War, Al Balaaza, Banu Kerdasa). This was another habit of Samira819, particularly the Las Davas sock; those previous examples are mostly all deleted, but you can see the notices for them on User talk:Las davas. Again, it's plausibly another POV editor, but it ticks all the boxes for Samira819.

R Prazeres (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence:

• Samira819 previously edit-warred at Libu in an attempt to label it a "civilization" ([44], [45], [46]), pursuing this on the talk page, and later repeating a similar attempt to label it a "state" ([47]); all reverted. Jake106meme is now trying to create a "Libyan Civilization" article (which they've defined as "The Libyan Civilization or Libu Civilization" [48]) which is clearly a duplicate and POV fork that circumvents consensus at Libu.

R Prazeres (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Confirmed.  Blocked and tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 41.254.66.104 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 41.254.71.16 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 41.254.71.179 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 41.254.66.126 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 165.16.20.30 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 41.254.71.124 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Right on schedule, more WP:DUCK IPs following in the footsteps of the last Samira819 sock blocked a few weeks ago (Jake106meme, see SPI here). Note that the IPs are very similar to others that were previously reported for this user: see here. The general pattern of the sockmaster is to add WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims and attributing them to sources that do not support the claim, almost always exaggerating the power, importance, or independence of former Libyan (or Tripolitanian) states.

The first three IPs are clearly linked to each other:

• 41.254.66.104 made this edit, pushing the same misleading POV/WP:OR that previous sock Jake106meme tried to push earlier, here. (Both edits aim to undercut the easily verified claim of Ottoman control.)
• When that was reverted, 41.254.71.16 defended the edit on the talk page ([49]).
• 41.254.71.179 then repeated the edit shortly after ([50]).

For the fourth (41.254.66.126):

• Around the same time, editing Karamanli dynasty, an article long targeted by the sockmaster (the talk page for example is almost entirely filled with comments by multiple iterations of Samira819 socks and myself). Following the same behaviour as previous socks: inserting a claim with citation to source that doesn't support it ([51]).
• The edit summary, "possiblr" (sic), is also the same type of hedged/ambiguous edit summary that previous socks would sometimes use for WP:FRINGE claims, e.g. from Jake106meme: [52], [53] (or see this).

The fifth (165.16.20.30):

• This one has previously been active in inserting the same inaccurate and Libya-related WP:OR in multiple other articles (e.g. [54], [55]).
• More recently, edited at Colonial Empire by adding misleading claim that a former Libyan state/faction was a "colonial" empire; namely this, which is just another variation on earlier edits by previous sock Jake106meme making similar claim: [56], [57].
• Same IP also repeating some of the sockmaster's original behaviour of pinging users multiple times in talk page replies: [58], [59], [60] (compare with behaviour of previous socks Jamalie7, Las Davas, and Hello 09761 at Talk:Karamanli dynasty, for example, or examples in previous SPIs).

R Prazeres (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC) R Prazeres (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth: adding 41.254.71.124, which inserted badly-written material with the usual POV and OR to Garamantes, an article repeatedly targeted by Samira819's socks (e.g. [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66]). I've seen some other IPs that look suspicious as well, but as they keep hopping anyways, I'm not bothering with the more ambiguous cases. R Prazeres (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As of today, IP 165.16.20.30 is the most recent one to be active. I've added another piece of evidence above. R Prazeres (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The IP edits are too old, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Likely sock of LTA who edits with similar style and POV on the same topics (relating to Libyan history).

• At Garamantes: Previous socks have repeatedly tried to replace the 1000 BC date with an older date (typically citing either a non-reliable source or a source that doesn't actually support their claim), e.g.: [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]. Tripolilegend is doing the same thing here (naming a period instead of a specific year), again citing a source that doesn't say that.
• This dubious addition of Tripoli/Libya as a belligerent to a battle/war is also typical of the sockmaster's edits, e.g.: [72], [73], [74].
• Lastly, at Talk:Ottoman–Venetian War (1570–1573) they pinged me here, out of nowhere, despite the fact that I have no comments there and no recent edits at that article (since January). They may be responding to this IP edit I reverted in January, which looks very much like the sockmaster's style described above. But it also looks like a continuation of the sockmaster's tradition of pinging me on a talk page and naming/linking sources that don't support their proposed edits. The classic example of this behaviour is Talk:Karamanli_dynasty (where nearly the whole page is filled with comments of at least 3 socks doing this) or Talk:Sardus. If they're doing it here pre-emptively, it means they're already anticipating this response from me. There's no reason for a new, unrelated editor to be doing this.
  • This too is the same thing: pinging me seemingly out of nowhere, when my only edit to that article was this revert of an IP used by Samira819 for block evasion last year. The new message is asking to reintroduce the same claim added by the sock IP.
  • Similarly but less obviously, they also randomly replied to my old comment here at Ottoman Tripolitania, an article and talk page where previous socks were active.

Requesting CU to confirm, also because it's been a while since the last confirmed sock (Jake106meme). R Prazeres (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I would say this is  Likely based on CU evidence, but combined with the topic overlap and some behavioral tics, I'm convinced this is the same person. Blocking, closing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Gara67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

This looks like another possible sock of LTA Samira819. Evidence:

• They created Kerdasa (tribe), a topic of dubious notability which Samira819 previously created as Banu Kerdasa (Banu Kerdasa is merely the Arabic name).
• Their very first edits ([75]) were to introduce material about Ottoman Tripolitania extending its control south across the Sahara using an irrelevant/non-reliable source, which is something Samira819 and their socks (Las Davas, Jamalie7, etc) were obsessed about and tried for a long time at Karamanli dynasty (a subtopic of Ottoman Tripolitania, e.g.: [76], [77], [78]). See also the long discussions at Talk:Karamanli dynasty with several of Samira819's socks that focus on this.
  • Previous socks were active at Ottoman Tripolitania too, though focusing on other claims (e.g. [79], [80], [81])
• Their claim here that the Senusiyya, a religious brotherhood, was an "empire", is very reminiscent of a previous sock's WP:OR that it is a "Colonial empire" here.
  • Previous socks were also active at Senusiyya itself, e.g.: [82], [83], [84]).
• Beyond this, they've edited several of the same articles Samira819 and their socks have previously edited. In addition to Ottoman Tripolitania and Senusiyya mentioned above:
  • List of wars involving Libya: [85], compare with e.g. [86]
  • Garamantes: [87], previous sock edits include: [88], [89], [90], [91] (although these were focusing on other claims).

It's been a few months since the last sock and there have been multiple similar but separate POV editors like this before, so requesting CU for greater clarity. R Prazeres (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Exceedingly  Likely bordering on  Confirmed.  Blocked and tagged. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]