User talk:Agents47

Welcome!

Hello, Agents47!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help. Has a list of maintenance tasks you can do.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Be civil, and reach a consensus there before restoring the edit.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source. Do not use AI-generated text.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:22, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Happy to be here. Agents47 (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Repair it. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

dbeef [talk] 04:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Agents47 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I am appealing this block because I am not Repair it and I am not evading that user’s block. I have read the SPI report carefully and understand why the timing and topic overlap raised suspicion. This account was created in July 2021 but was dormant until late July 2026. My first edits were not on the Itsekiri articles. I became active after reading History of Nigeria, noticed a claim that appeared unsupported, followed the links to Kingdom of Warri, checked the cited sources, and removed what I believed was unsupported material. then continued researching the subject and, through that research, came across the Itsekiri-related articles and found other information that I believed could be improved or added so I added them to kingdom of warri article with its sources. From there I began looking at other West African and African history articles and making edits where I thought information could be improved. I only became involved in the dispute over the large rewrite after I came across it while reviewing the related articles connected to kingdom of warri and read the discussions surrounding it. My decision to question the rewrite was based on my own review of the sources and the discussion, not on any connection to Repair it I am not a bot. I have no connection with Repair it and I have not been acting on behalf of that account and I do not have an owner I am a real person. I respectfully ask that the evidence linking this account to Repair it be reviewed again. If appropriate, I am willing to cooperate with confidential verification ID, video or picture of my real face through the proper Wikipedia channels to establish that I am a separate person. I will fully respect the block while this appeal is considered and will not attempt to evade it in any way. Agents47 (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

CU determined the relationship between your account and Repair it was "Likely". The behavioral evidence removed all doubt. You'll need to come up with a more convincing explanation as to why technically and behavorially you're the same user to convince anyone you are not the same user. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I also read the user page of Repair it, where that account accused me of “destroying” an article. I did not destroy any article. I created a proposed draft based on earlier versions of the page, reworded some statements so they more accurately reflected the sources, and added additional information. My draft was an alternative to the large rewrite, not an attempt to destroy the content. Agents47 (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid that defense won't work, they checked your IP, so they know you are Repair it himself. Jako96 (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

That is not possible. I am not that person. I use iPhone 11 Pro Max phone my IP network I use starlink, link tp and my work network which I don’t know it’s name but it’s something Skynet. I am very prepared to present my face, ID and video saying anything they want and I demand the same user they accuse me of do same. I can prove my innocence.

Agents47 (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Talk with the other user. Jako96 (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I don’t know how to do that. I am blocked to even reply in their talk page Where do I send my verification to and what will be needed from me? I’m prepared to send it right now. Agents47 (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

You can ping him or just link to his userpage in your message here to alert that user. I'm not saying this is the proper way to get unblocked, btw. Jako96 (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you I know. But it is the only way I can prove my identity and they should prove theirs too. Agents47 (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Repair it: I have been accused of being you, and I strongly deny that. I am willing to cooperate with confidential identity verification through an administrator to establish that we are two different people. If you are also willing, I would like us both to submit whatever reasonable verification an administrator considers appropriate, including government-issued identification or a video verification if the administrator specifically requests it. I am not asking either of us to post private documents publicly I am asking for a fair way to prove that there has been some mistake. I am prepared to cooperate fully because I genuinely believe this identification is a mistake.

Agents47 (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Is this Bascom-derived Yorubaland map, original synthesis?.The discussion is about the topic Yorubaland. Thank you. --Itsekiriwriting (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Kingdom of Warri crown reconstructions and WP:Original images.The discussion is about the topic Kingdom of Warri. Thank you. --Itsekiriwriting (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is “Degree of Presence of the Yoruba” map: original research.The discussion is about the topic Yoruba people. Thank you. --Itsekiriwriting (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Bascom-derived Yorubaland map lacking POV and given undue weight. The discussion is about the topic Yorubaland. Thank you. --Itsekiriwriting (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Repeated attribution of motives by Agents47 and Oramfe. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Unblock Appeal: I am not repair it

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Agents47 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I am requesting reconsideration of this block. I understand that the CheckUser result was “Likely” and that the behavioural evidence was considered decisive. I state clearly that I am not Repair it, I have never operated that account, and I have no connection to it. Technical side: I edit from Nigeria and regularly switch between several internet connections, including mobile networks and Wi-Fi at my workplace. I understand that technical information is confidential and I am not requesting disclosure of CheckUser data. I am simply explaining that my internet access is not limited to one fixed connection and that technical overlap between unrelated users can occur through shared network infrastructure. Behavioural side and timing: This account was created in 2021 and remained inactive until late July 2026. I became active after seeing public discussions about Wikipedia articles on Nigerian history circulating on Facebook around 26 July. After seeing those discussions, I checked the articles myself, starting with History of Nigeria, followed links to Kingdom of Warri, examined the sources, and began making edits. From there I continued reading related pages, including the Itsekiri articles. I only became involved in the larger rewrite discussion after encountering it while reviewing those linked pages. I understand that the timing of my activity shortly after Repair it was blocked looks suspicious. However, the subject was already being publicly discussed, and another person independently becoming interested in the same articles is possible. As two independent Nigerian editors researching the same disputed historical subjects and examining many of the same sources, similarities in terminology, sources and areas of interest can naturally occur. I ask that my full editing history and the path by which I independently arrived at these articles also be taken into account. I have never operated the Repair it account and have no connection to that user. I am willing to cooperate fully with any appropriate confidential verification or further review through official Wikipedia channels if that would help establish that we are two separate people. I am not asking anyone to disregard the CheckUser result; I am asking that my explanation and the circumstances of my account activity be considered alongside it. I will continue to respect the block while this appeal is considered. Agents47 (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decloine. Please have only one active unblock request at a time. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:19, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Agents47 (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

There is no strong reason to unblock you here. Also, switching your internet connection so much will not cause that your IP be detected to be almost the same with that other blocked user's. Jako96 (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, don't use LLMs to appeal blocks, it's against the rules. You did this twice now, which makes it even more impossible for you to actually get unblocked. Jako96 (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Repair it also uses LLMs a lot, what a coincidence (!) that you are too... We are not fools. Trying to lie further makes it just more impossible to get unblocked and is very disrespectful to other editors here, especially the admins. Jako96 (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

One last thing: It is not a violation of the rules at this time probably, but still such comments should be collapsed and it's discouraged. Jako96 (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jako96 I disagree that using an LLM to help arrange or edit the wording of an appeal establishes that I am Repair it. I am responsible for the facts and statements in my appeal; using a tool to help organize those statements is not evidence that I operate another account. The same applies to the sources and terminology used in the articles. Editors working on the same disputed subject will naturally encounter and use many of the same sources. I have also observed other editors using similar tools, but I am not presenting that as evidence against them, because tool usage alone does not establish identity.

My central point remains unanswered: I have consistently denied being Repair it and have offered to cooperate with appropriate confidential verification to establish that we are two different people. I have asked whether both accounts can undergo whatever identity verification an administrator considers appropriate, but neither the user nor the administrators have indicated that such a process will be considered.

I am not asking anyone to ignore the CheckUser result. I am asking for a fair opportunity to establish that the is a mistake. If there is a specific rule that prevents the type of confidential verification I have proposed, please point me to it. Otherwise, I would prefer that we focus on the actual evidence rather than treating the use of an editing tool as proof of identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agents47 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Agents47 No, you did not use "an LLM to help arrange or edit the wording of an appeal," you generated the appeal as a whole with a LLM. At the max, you maybe changed a few words. Also, both IP and behaviour evidence counts. Jako96 (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jako96 No I did not generate it as a whole, and also all you need to do is go to google or YouTube ask if it is possible for others to share same ip address in Nigeria, and this is what you will get “This happens because internet service providers (ISPs) like MTN, Glo, Airtel, or Spectranet use a system called Carrier-Grade NAT (CG-NAT) to let many customers share a single public IP address due to a shortage of IPv4 addresses” like right now I switched to my Glo network. I am not denying anything. I am not that user I have asked for verification give me that. I need to prove it Agents47 (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Behavioural evidence is already present. Also, you use curly quotes instead of straight ones (which is a rare thing), consistent with Repair it. So there is one more proof now too, and thanks for that. Jako96 (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jako96 I feel I am being asked to prove my innocence while I have not been given a clear way to do so. I do not think the use of quotation marks can reasonably establish a behavioral connection between me and Repair it. Quotation marks are a normal convention used when quoting another person or writing a passage from a source, and different editors can independently use the same convention. It is not something unique to one user. More importantly, I do not think this discussion is addressing the actual issue anymore. I have consistently stated that I am not Repair it and that I am willing to cooperate with an appropriate process to establish that. I have offered to participate in confidential verification, including whatever reasonable identity or other verification process an admin considers appropriate between the two accounts. I am asking to be told what legitimate process is available for me to demonstrate that I am a separate person.Agents47 (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Agents47 I will not reply further here. Jako96 (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Agents47 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I ask for review of my block. I have always stated that I do not Repair it; I did not run that account, nor do I know its owner. I acknowledge the CheckUser finding that "Likely" there was connection as well as other behavioral evidence. I am from Nigeria all mobile networks here share large numbers of same IP addresses which includes the current one I am using Glo you can research to confirm this and while I recognise this does not automatically obviate the CheckUser findings, I submit that they should at least be put in their technical evidence consideration.

I created this account in 2021 during a high wiki page vandalism but before I could do anything wiki editors already corrected the vandalism so I left the account and it remained unused until late July 2026. When I noticed the online debate about Nigeria histories and arguments so I logged in again and I investigated independently. The History of Nigeria page was explored as a gateway, which led into its article on Kingdom of Warri and associated Itsekiri articles, and sources, which prompted edits from me and The conversation on rewrite arose as a result.

I would be willing to participate in any appropriate verified confidential processes with either an admin or a CheckUser that could demonstrate my physical separation from the owner of Repair it. I hope that you will review and permit me to establish a clear misidentification. I accept and respect the block pending that review Agents47 (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you have private information to share regarding your appeal, use WP:UTRS. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:58, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Agents47 (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

No, %95 of all mobile networks do not share the same IP adress in Nigeria, that is absolutely hilarious, my god. Jako96 (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @The Bushranger if they are interested. Jako96 (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

NOTE TO ADMINS that this appeal is also LLM generated, just like the previous ones. Jako96 (talk) 07:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I really do not know what I did to you but this isn’t generated this is my text from my note pad. Agents47 (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

It should be same networks I have corrected myself there but it is a fact all glo ip addresses are either in Lagos or Abuja every one who uses it have same. And so it is with MTN or Airtel. Just research they use Carrier-Grade NAT (CGNAT). This technology dynamically assigns one public IP address to hundreds or thousands of different mobile users at the same time. That is the simple explanation for this mistake other than that there is no other way we can both share same IP no way. I am not repair it show me how to prove it and I ask that they too join to prove themselves Agents47 (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)