Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingcoconut/Archive

Report date May 22 2009, 00:13 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by GenericBob

To date, every single edit from Kingcoconut has been about Peter Foster - either on the Foster article itself, or topics related to Foster.edits The same is true of edits by 123.211.78.219. Compare e.g. this series of edits by 123.211.78.219 with this series by Kingcoconut. Comparison of writing style etc. should make it obvious that these are the same person - I won't spell out the similarities because I don't want to give him ideas on how to disguise this behaviour, but I think they should be obvious enough.

I had assumed this was just a matter of a new user sometimes forgetting to log in, until I saw these edits:

Edit by 123.211.78.219 on Talk:Peter Foster: created new section titled "AUTARCH EDITING IS BIAS AND WORRYING".

Edit from Kingcoconut, immediately underneath the abovementioned one (after some other reverted edits, see article history): "I AGREE AUTARCH EDITS ARE BIAS". Here, he is attempting to represent himself as a second, different person supporting the previous poster's criticism of Autarch's editing. This is a clear violation of WP:STUFF. Even a new editor unfamiliar with WP policy should be able to figure out that attempting to deceive other editors is inappropriate.

GenericBob (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional: Ratugaloot appears to be an earlier account used briefly by the same user. See e.g. which includes one of the same characteristic mistakes made by both KC and 123.211.78.219. --GenericBob (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Similar patterns to those mentioned by GenericBob can be seen in earlier edits like those submitted by 210.7.17.121 - either to Peter Foster or a topic related to him. Likewise for Freelance78 with the addition of having a comment on the photo not unlike that in  and. This edit by Aust78 shows the removal of a maintenance tag, which has happened with recent edits to Peter Foster. 210.7.18.162 removed another users comments in the talk page and replaced them with pro-Foster comments in this edit similar to the deletion of comments critical of Foster in this edit by 210.7.17.226. Likewise 210.7.10.81 blanked a section about Foster being arrested in Fiji in this edit. Contributions/210.7.17.220 shows similar edits plus some strange edits to Michael Winner. Other accounts I've added above show typical boosting of Foster. Autarch (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Autarch
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

These accounts and IPs are mostly very old, but here goes:
 * The 210.* IPs are on a dynamic range in Australia, so they're all the same judging by the editing patterns.
 * Freelance78 = Aust78 – similar usernames and same edits. However there is no evidence that these accounts were used abusively. There was no edit warring over the photograph, for example.
 * 123.211.78.219 = Kingcoconut, and they have both been blocked by someone else.
 * There is no substantial evidence linking any of the above to each other as a collective. Even if there was, the 2006 IPs and accounts are hardly worth blocking today. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 11:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)