Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Agesworthuser/Archive

Evidence submitted by ElKevbo
The editing patterns show very clear overlap between these accounts. The two registered accounts are SPAs who only edit the same article. All three accounts edit almost exclusively in support of one another. And the IP account has been used to edit (multiple times) Agesworthuser's comments right before posting a message "agreeing" with Agesworthuser's comments, as if he or she forgot that he or she had logged out and was then using a different account. ElKevbo (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Madcoverboy
Agnesworthuser just admitted below that his/her brother User:Rppeabody and User:Proofallgames are the same account. This is now a cut-and-dry case of meat-puppetry (emphasis added): "Alternative accounts should not be used to avoid scrutiny; mislead or deceive other editors; edit project discussions (e.g. policy debates and Arbitration proceedings); make disruptive edits with one account and normal edits with another; distort consensus; stir up controversy; or circumvent sanctions or policy." Madcoverboy (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that the issue is resolved? I have read the article on meatpuppetry, and it seems to imply that this is not a crime meriting blocking, but the article is not very clear on the specifics.  I do think that Agesworthuser and Proofallgames should have declared that they were siblings and that not doing so is clearly a violation in spirit.  But new users cannot be expected to read all Wikipedia behavior suggestions before proceeding, and nowhere does it say (that I can find, at least) that meatpuppetry is a blockable offense.  So I think that Agesworthuser and Proofallgames do not need to be blocked, but I think they should post a note on their pages explaining that they are related in order "to prevent allegations of sockpuppetry" (in the words of the meatpuppetry policy page).  Do other users agree with this?Rppeabody (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, this is not yet resolved. Without casting aspersions on Agesworthuser, there is a history of sockpuppeteers claiming that their sibling, parent, friend, etc. was really behind everything.  This still needs to be investigated and a fresh set of unbiased eyes needs to review everything.
 * (And the critical part of the policy for which you are looking is: "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives.") ElKevbo (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have clearly edited with at least a different objective from my brother - you see, I sometimes edit to caution my brother about his use of words. Anyway, thanks for your considerate remark "without casting aspersions on [my brother]." By the way, I have contributed to the Amherst article for a few months longer than my brother, and I never attempted to give the impression that the ip editor was different from proofallgames as you can see here at the admin Ged Uk's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.11 (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've struck my misinterpretation of User:Agesworthuser's statement. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As usual Madcoverboy, you made another mistake. Please review your paragraph above which looks incoherent after you conveniently struck off your yet another mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.11 (talk)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Thank you so much Rppealbody for bringing this worthless accusations to my attention. I just have profound contempt for ElKevbo, who has time to make this accusation and other bigotic and falsely authoritative remarks, but is incapable of suggesting a suitable lede for the Amherst College article.

I hate to waste anymore time on Elkevbo, and his fruitless pursuits. Nevertheless, for the record, I shall attempt to free myself from this frivolous accusation:

1. You're right, Rppealbody, my brother, who has lately abandoned his wikipedia account proofallgames for fear of being harassed by "senior editors" like ElKevbo and Madcoverboy, edits the Amherst article occasionally too. So my brother is that IP editor, who doesn't worry about just overwriting my statements.


 * Agesworthuser, it seems Madcoverboy has willfully misinterpreted your comment as referring to me as your brother rather than simply addressing me and then referring to your brother, who is not me and whose sole account is proofallgames. Could you please issue a clarification saying that I am not your brother?  Also--just a small thing--could you spell my username Rppeabody, not Rppealbody?Rppeabody (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was willful but I agree that it's probably a misunderstanding of what was meant. It's an understandable mistake and it would be helpful if the original statement could be clarified. ElKevbo (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Struck above. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

2. I find it amusing that ElKevbo is basing his accusation on the close proximity of time that the supportive statements were posted. According to such inane logic, Npdoty and Elkevbo yourself should also be other accounts of mine too. It seems like I have fabricated the whole edit war to kill time! But maybe not, because Elkevbo and Rppealbody could be accounts of another person. I say so because here and here, there have been posts by me, Npdoty and Elkevbo written about 4 minutes or less after each other. What a joke, Elkevbo, your logic!

3. Come on ban me if you can, Elkevbo. You sound like you can: "The policy is clear, we can (and do) block IP addresses, and we absolutely block registered editors who abuse multiple accounts, including unregistered accounts." I must repeat, "Thank God you are not an admin, otherwise Wikipedia would have failed!"

PS. I have reported the "tasteless works" of Elkevbo to an admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agesworthuser (talk • contribs) 14:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I also find ElKevbo's persistent harassment both rude and tasteless, although I don't think he violated any official rules. I am new to Wikipedia, so could you let me know how you went about reporting this to an admin?  I would like to do the same.Rppeabody (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rppealbody, I am sorry my brother caused you much misunderstanding but I must not deny that I'm happy you can emphathise with us now about those two editors. You can send a private email to GedUk, the admin who protected the Amherst page.218.186.9.11 (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that he or she sent an e-mail to an administrator. If you feel strongly about this, this would probably be the best place to discuss it.  However, I would appreciate if you'd note that I've disengaged from this editor; I've said what I have to say and this will be resolved once an administrator/checkuser evaluates this sockpuppet investigation.
 * And if we're going to continue discussions that have little to do with this investigation we should probably do it somewhere else to avoid cluttering this up and making it more complicated for whoever has to act on it. You're welcome to post on my Talk page if you'd like. ElKevbo (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Agree that at least for the IP poster, who today both edited Agesworthuser's comments (as Agesworthuser commonly does) and then immediately posted an endorsement, there appears to be some sockpuppetry going on. Further investigation or action would be helpful. Npdoty (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this looks quite suspicious, but I do not believe that this is a prosecutable example of sock puppetry for two reasons:


 * Firstly, the IP address user did not fully support Agesworthuser. In fact, he/she criticized Agesworthuser for not including enough citations.  I think it is likely that another user related to Agesworthuser (and probably with sympathetic views) logged on to the same computer and made the IP address post.


 * Secondly, I do not think that Agesworthuser would have technically violated the sock puppetry rules even if he/she deliberately used the IP post to advance his/her own position. The rules forbid the creation of multiple accounts, but they do not expressly forbid the use of an IP address to support one's position.  Clearly, this is a violation of good faith, but it does not appear to be against the rules (most likely because IP addresses can be shared).Rppeabody (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You think that within an hour of Agesworthuser making his or her original comments another unrelated editor jumped into the conversation for the first time, edited his or her comments, and then agreed with Agesworthuser? I'm sorry but that just doesn't sound plausible.


 * No, but I do think there is a real possibility that it was a related editor, such as a relative. Also, according to the records I traced down, it was more than an hour:  It appears that Agesw. finished posting the original comment at 13:52, then logged on using the IP address to edit his or her original post at 14:48.  Then, more than an hour later at 16:35, the IP user logged on again (this time maybe someone who lives with Agesw.), fixed some broken links that Agesw. made (something anyone might do), then made a comment moderately agreeing with Agesw.  I honestly do not know whether the IP user is Agesw. or one of Agews.'s relatives, but I think the latter possibility is more likely due to the fact that the IP user did criticize Agesw. for lack of citations.Rppeabody (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then it's a meatpuppet and not a sockpuppet but the effect - and the treatment - is the same. And the unregistered editor didn't criticize Agesworthuser, he or she "helpfully" pointed out that more citations were needed. ElKevbo (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And our policy clearly states that "Alternative accounts must not be used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists." The unregistered editor posted "I agree with your version, Agesworthuser...."


 * Yes, "alternative accounts must not be used." IP editors do not have an account per se, and I don't think Wikipedia can block them.  I do not believe that the policy actually bans using IP logins for that purpose, probably because they are frequently shared.  A violation of the spirit of the rule is not necessarily a violation of the actual rule.Rppeabody (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The policy is clear, we can (and do) block IP addresses, and we absolutely block registered editors who abuse multiple accounts, including unregistered accounts. ElKevbo (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a pretty cut-and-dried case and I think I'm actually being more than fair by coming here so that Agesworthuser can be given a full hearing with as much time and evidence as possible. These sockpuppets quack very loudly so it would be pretty easy to just find an admin to block all three editors. ElKevbo (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Block all three editors? You have given no evidence whatsoever that Proofallgames is the same person as Agesw., El Kevbo, and again, I don't think Wikipedia can block IP addresses.Rppeabody (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So it's a coincidence that these two editors (a) only edit this one article (b) at about the same time on the same days (c) in full support of one another? Not likely. ElKevbo (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All three SPA accounts conveniently are participating in a discussion on User talk:Ged UK on the same day and supporting each other. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Madcoverboy (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, Madcoverboy, I hope you don't embarass yourself once more and watch your language because if supporting my brother means "I am my brother" then you should surely be ElKevbo, because you even praised him in the Amherst's talk page! It looks like more hilarious than a duck and quacks worse then a duck... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.11 (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * The user is my brother story simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny in this case. The edits are identical in some places, with both editors focusing on the same pages and editors. As such, I have blocked Agesworthuser for 2 weeks, and the other account indefinitely. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 20:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)