Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Agent00f/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Agent00f


Agent00f

11 May 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


IP address comes to a new section in the talk page raising concerns, After looking at the behavior of the postings I suggest that attacking other editors is not conducive to improving articles. I make the suggestion that "nor is your commentary unfamiliar"[1]. I make the suggestion that they should log in or register as we would hate for them to fall on the wrong side of policies. They respond back claiming that I'm making threats about sockpuppetry/blocking/banning[2]. Their editing style is make a significant post, then make several small "correction edits". IP address has not expressed previous knowledge of sockpuppetry, banning, or blocking. Whereas Agent00f has had direct experience (with myself) with these concepts. Hasteur (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2012 (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 May 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Very Similar to posts in the same thread that Agent00f was blocked for. Again, a common demand about seperate articles for all UFC pages as Agent00f Another long post in the same line as Agent00f Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

As an editor in the field I'm thinking not. Agent00f has exhibited more US based tenancies and references to US based shows and timings. The IP address geolocates to Bristol UK, which is locationally appropraite to annother Sock (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BigzMMA) which is also being investigated. Hasteur (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would defer to Hasteur on this, he has more experience with WP and both individuals.Newmanoconnor (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hasteur (which is obvious since I suspect the IP to belong to a different, indef blocked user). I have little reason to believe that this IP is related to Agent00f other than their common interest in the keeping of MMA (or at least UFC) event articles. As for the IP in question here, I would refer to the SPI I opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BigzMMA. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To Clarify, I'm fairly certain Agent00f has made mention of watching US based reality TV on the right timeframe for US prime time. The IP address geolocates to Western UK, which in my mind, doesn't really compute (unless they're doing satelite). Hasteur (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
Marking all cases as closed with no action taken; the IPs are on different continents, and they both have not logged any edits for several days, now. Please be more careful when suspecting sockpuppetry, especially in a situation like this. --MuZemike 04:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
21 May 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Agent00f, previously blocked [3] for similar "methods" that Factseducado is/was displaying, "disruptive editing: aggressive filibustering, walls of text and personal attacks". Account first started on 9 January 2010 but no significant edits until 23 April 2012. I am claiming Agent as the puppetmaster as it is the oldest account.

Factseducado first edit 23 April 2012. Please note that Factseducado is currently blocked for sockpuppeting, including a CU conducted by Elen of the Roads, blocking Factseducado, a registered puppet, and the IP listed. The editor essentially outed themselves here [4] and by the other edits of that IP, providing us a geolocation in plain site. Based on the previous SPI reports on Agent00f and random comments, it is believed that Agent00f lives in the same continent as the IP address given herein.

Similarities include intentional misunderstand and taking out of context, obtuse and obstructionist behavior, Factseducado behavior is highly inconsistent throughout his participation in forums (from inquisitive, to defensive, to lashing, to collected, then snide), which may indicate concealment of identity (one can only consistently act different for so long). Factseducado has steadfastly defended Agent00f at his RFC/U, which is fine by itself, but they had not even participated in the discussions (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability) that began the RFC/U until May 18, 6 days after the RFC/U began. Based on the amazing coincidences in timing of both the start to edit dates, participation in the RFC/U, changes in demeaner of Facts (indicating concealment) and methods of disruption, I feel there is a strong WP:DUCK argument to be had, and request a checkuser/sleepers investigation be conducted. I could dig up diffs, which would take time, but feel an overview of the limited venues is likely enough to verify the pattern. There are additional conversations with Factseducado on the talk pages of Elen of the Roads and myself which may be helpful to establish patterns of inconsistency in behavior and concealment. Agent also changed demeanor somewhat once Factseducado began, but that isn't the basis for this SPI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

  • Interesting. I agree that CU is warranted. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Drmies; there is too much quacking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I doubt that Agent00f and Fatseducado are the same person. 'Elen of the Roads' commented on their talk page[5], the IP used by Facts was used by three accounts: the IP itself, Facts, and the now blocked NewtonGeek. If I understand that statement correctly, that means Agent00f did not edit using that same IP address. The contribution history of the two users shows a number of edits being made very closely in time with each other and several pairs of edits between the two users occurring within the same minute (one example: Agent and Facts). I suppose it is possible to make two edits, from two account, from two different IPs within the same 60 seconds. However, I find it hard to believe that a single user can consistently make substantial edits within close proximity (time-wise) within each other and not use the same IP. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IPs change, proxies can be used, geolocations must be considered. It is quite possible (and relatively easy) to sock using different countries as points of origin, which is likely more common for SPA accounts for technical reasons (proxies are slower, for starters). This is why the WP:DUCK test exists. For example, A CU for me would turn up two primary nearby geolocations, as I edit from home and work, which are over 50 miles separated and on different network types. I also travel and edit, adding more locations. It is a complicated thing that doesn't always point to a single IP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying that it is possible for a person to have sockpuppet(s) that edit exclusively from IPs different from the master. What I'm saying is that, in my opinion, Agent and Facts aren't the same person due to the closeness in times of each of their edits and how ...... long-winded they can be (did I say that in a non-offensive, non-attack manner?  ;). Here's a more impressive example of large edits within the same minute: Agent and Facts. If it turns out they are the same person, fair enough, and I'll give them credit for being able to make significantly sized edits within minutes (or within the same minute) of each other. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of those is only a deletion of their own comments, the other is a single large paragraph, which both editors have shown they can generate in short order. Also, not everyone is compelled to hit the "save page" button the instant the last tilde is struck. Your point is interesting and received, but not conclusive and doesn't address the other unusual coincidences, which are plentiful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be pretty difficult to sock as different IPs using two proxies, or a proxy and a local, to make edits that close together. I suppose if you tied two browsers to two different IPs, drafted both edits completely first, and then hit submit, you could do it. The only reason would be if he anticipated an SPI and wanted to create counter-evidence.

Interesting notes:

Weirdest, if they are in fact unrelated, is that Facts' very first edits [6] came the same day as Agent's first significant participation [7] (only two earlier edits from this account, years earlier). --Which I now see is in Dennis' initial summary so I feel stupid having pointed out.

Also it's unclear how Facts came upon Agent's conflicts. After um... firmly establishing his interests quite publicly by plastering invitations to a discussion about Theosophy on some 30 user talk pages, and adding himself to the member lists of a bunch of philosophy and new-age WikiProjects, he showed up on Agent's userpage to state his support regarding the Mixed Martial Arts conflict.

Maybe a case of meatpuppets instead. Equazcion (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've receive no notification of this (I understand it's not mandatory), and only happened upon it after indirect remarks by Dennis. My comments on the matter have already been posted here. Agent00f (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably also worth noting that it's not the first time these accusations have been thrown at me without much of any result on the same topic, though I'm unaware of any prior official SPI. Agent00f (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re to UTRS unblock request: I would suggest denying the appeal on grounds of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review coupled with the WP:BROTHER argument. That the new account registered after the first one started the self destruct sequence and now getting this request seems significantly suspicious. I may be completely jaded by the entire article space so my suggestion should be evaluated against the mirror of good Wiki policyHasteur (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur is the editor who's been pursuing the RfC against me noted by Dennis above (similar sort of SOCK accusations seem to cross over from prior ANIs from same). Both Factseducado and spouse appear to be/been higher-ed academics, and Facts was off-wiki threatened/harassed for involvement in the RfC which is what likely led to the bit of "inconsistent behavior" at the end. This is after hundreds of consistently kind comments from Facts previously on other subjects (see contribs), the sort I'm accused by same parties of NOT making.
This doesn't mention Hasteur's factual inaccuracy yet: "new account registered after the first one started...", NewtonGeek was created <Apr 27, well before any of this happened. When the kind of disturbing accusations in this SPI and from before never seem to measure up, it frankly appears desperate and detract from the credibility of the accusers; especially when there's never a clear retraction apology in all the places they're made. Agent00f (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agent, you are not being threatened here. Please stop tracking other conflicts around to poision the water hole. I made a suggestion and the admins are free to accept of deny it. They don't need your kibitzing to help them find the answer. As good faith I have strook my misstatement. Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is a SPI about "puppets" I'm accused of controlling, I do feel the need to point out relevant facts of the case. Given the history of similar unfounded accusations against me, I suppose I'm personally numb to it, but stepping on others simply because they've tried to defend me crosses a line where I feel compelled to put up a defense for them. And speaking of "poisoning", if the "pattern" of what's happening to Factseducado rings across to any newer editor who consider supporting an unpopular view, then my arguments are unnecessary to apply your word. Agent00f (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agent, this SUB-THREAD is in particular response to the request to unblock NewtonGeek. In no way is it pertaining to you. I ask that you strike your commentary starting at 10:02 23 May 2012 and all subsequent commentary. All you're doing is further pontificating about the forces of malevolence that are out to get you. It's a shame that you can't separate content from conduct and see everything as a WP:BATTLEFIELD. Hasteur (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The overseeing admins can judge for themselves and do not require your advice as to what are pertinent facts. I see nothing about content or battle, only the editor who pursued the RfC/ANI that led to this unfortunate SPI wishing to disassociate from their own accusations when they're found to be unsubstantiated. Agent00f (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agent has no reason to pretend to be Factseducado. He is capable of handling the hordes of editors who are against him all by himself. Portillo (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please provide criteria for closure given that investigative activity seems to be long over? I hope we're not waiting to add more editors with allegedly similar demeanor and believed to live on the same continent. Thanks. 20:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent00f (talk • contribs)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  • In Checkuser terms, Agent00f and Factseducado are   Unrelated, other than being on the same continent.
  • NewtonGeek is   Confirmed as created by Factseducado but has never edited, so can't really be accused of socking. Factseducado has confirmed that the IP is him editing logged out by accident - the fact that he goes back and confirms it is him means there is no problem with the identification.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Agent00f/Archive&oldid=1142568171"