Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kookoo Star/Archive

29 March 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

There is a pattern of edit-warring from an anonymous IP editor from the 88.104.XXX.XXX range intermingled with similar edits by User:Kookoo Star, often undertaken with the intention to avoid the main account being detected for edit-warring.

On the Stephanie Rice article there were three reverts undertaken by IP 88.104 in a 24 hour timespan:, , ; A fourth revert was then made by KooStar within the same 24 hour period:. There have been other reverts by IP 88.104 either side of that time period:. An obvious 3RR evasion tactic if they are the same editor. The edit-warring resulted in page protection.

A similar incident took place on the Bonnie Tyler article, involving IP 88.104 and KooKoo Star. There were at least 4 reverts by IP 88.104 and two by KooKoo Star between December 2 2010 and December 17 2010, which only ceased once the article was placed into protection:

On the Falcon Crest article, between June 29 2010 and July 14 2010, IP 88.104 and KooKoo Star war with a singular editor: ; while the edit-warring/3RR policy was not breached it gives the impression that two editors are against one, evading edit-warring detection.

On the The Face – The Very Best of Visage, these is no edit-warring at all, but edits made by KooKoo Star are imediately followed up by edits by IP 88.104, leaving little doubt that they are the same editor: (June 5 2010 – June 6 2010)

It appears KooKoo Star edit wars in IP mode to protect his main account and to evade edit-warring detection, and with the added benefit that his edits are supported by another editor, since at no time during the disputes does he declare that the IP edits are his. On the Stephanie Rice talk page, an editor airs their suspicions about sockpuppetry in the dispute :

Content disputes are not'' vandalism. That said, various editors repeatedly making the same/similar changes without discussing the matter will be warned and blocked for disruptive editing. Any indication that various IPs and/or user names are in fact one person will result in protecting the article and/or blocking for sockpuppetry. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)''

Kookoo Star replied:

''Removing accurate and adequately sourced details from an article without reason and trying to call it a BLP violation is indeed vandalism. And I am in total agreement about IPs and sockpuppets, so I suggest all editors heed this warning. Kookoo Star (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)''

To me, this is wantonly deceptive, since Kookoo Star should have declared his anonymous IP edits, but instead insinuates he is only operating from the one account. A clear policy violation, and disingenuous to other editors.

Betty Logan (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply to User:HelloAnnyong
 * I don't really expect a range block, I listed the IPs to demonstrate the deception, to the point it is employed to evade 3RR. Does that really warrant "no action"? Some of this stuff is old, but the point is that the behavior is ongoing and sustained. I was hoping some action would be taken against the main account: either the editor would admit the deception and give his word to cease editing anonymously, or at least stop perpetuating the same edit from his main account and also doing it anonymously. If he doesn't then his main account should be treated the same way all socks are and blocked. Betty Logan (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

This has only just been brought to my attention as user:SummerPhd failed to notify me of this accusation at the time s/he made it (18 March 2011). It would appear that the reason SummerPhD has made the accusation is because s/he is involved in a content dispute on an article (Stephanie Rice) and I am on the opposing side. Obviously if s/he can try to smear the opposing side, s/he thinks it will help his/her argument. I'm afraid that is not the case. And as far as the sockpuppetry accusation goes, there is no evidence at all. The IP addresses on each of the different articles that I have made edits to (listed above) are different. The same range is simply not evidence of anything other than those IP users have the same ISP and could therefore be one of a million people. It could just as easily be alleged that SummerPhD is actually one of the IP users on the opposing side of the debate, but, like this, there is no evidence - just suspicion. And as for the comments by user:Betty Logan, I think it should be pointed out that this user was | reported by me for edit warring a couple of months ago, and she narrowly avoided being blocked for her conduct. It is perfectly obvious what her intentions here are. Something that may be of interest though is that SummerPhD and Betty Logan have no less than 61 intersecting articles in their individual histories, on articles as far ranging as Spider-Man 3 to Bill Clinton to Pescetarianism (seafood diets). Kookoo Star (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * None of these IPs have really eedited since Stephanie Rice was protected. 88.104.16.0/20 would be the range to block, but some of these IPs haven't been used in a long time. 88.104.16.0/20 would be the range, but there would be a lot of collateral damage. I'm not really seeing any reason to take further action here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If this were reported at ANEW now, it would've been closed as being stale. Given that the account hasn't edited in at least ten days, I'm having a hard time justifying any sort of 3RR action against them - what good does it do to block an account for 24h when they haven't edited in ten days? If this were more timely then I'd be more inclined - but the fact is that protecting that article basically put an end to this for now. I'm inclined to close, with the caveat that this can be reopened if/when there is further evidence, provided it is reported in a timely fashion. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, no /20 after 10 days of silence. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  13:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)