Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Colofac/Archive

05 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I have been accused of being a sockpuppet of User:Oakshade on a discussion at Administrators noticeboard/incidents here. These untrue allegations are damaging, and I would like this matter closed through this process. Colofac (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * At ANI, I misread a poorly formatted report started by User:Oakshade (two subheadings before the user's signature) as being started by User:Colofac. As I pointed out that Colofac is clearly not a new user, Colofac and others apparently misunderstood me as implying that Colofac is a sockpuppet of Oakshade. With this self-report Colofac is making a mountain out of a molehill, presumably to detract attention from his agenda of bullying against 'foreigners'. Hans Adler 15:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You quite clearly state that I am a sockpuppet. Please state who you think I am a sockpuppet of, so that this investigation can be more thorough and conclusive. I have also noted the personal attack above. Colofac (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I made it clear that you fit the typical pattern of a returning user, and your behaviour with your present account makes it appear very unlikely that your previous account is in good standing. I also made it clear that I have no idea what your previous account is, so stop asking for what you know I cannot provide. Hans Adler 22:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Don't know what's going on here, but I'm not a sock of this editor or viceversa. Feel free to perform a checkuser or whatever.--Oakshade (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oakshade is definitely not related to Colofac. Indeed, Hans' eyes milead him. He assumed that Colofac started the section, and he asserted that Colofac is an experienced user from registration based on the quick uptake of tools such as Twinkle, and possibly a sockpuppet. Another user, Have Morser Will Travel (pulling from memory, too lazy to grab diffs), then tied Colofac to Oakshade. It seems like Colofac is now just enticing further unnecessary drama. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I'm sorry, but we usually don't accept requests to prove innocence in the manner you're suggesting. From WP:CheckUser: "Some wikis allow an editor's IPs to be checked upon his or her request if, for example, there is a need to provide evidence of innocence against a sockpuppet allegation... Such requests are typically declined on the English Wikipedia." TN X Man 14:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to mark this for close. If there is concrete evidence (preferably supported by diffs) that these two accounts are related, then please feel free to refile. As I mentioned earlier, SPI is generally not used as a pre-emptive "innocence check". TN X Man  17:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

01 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I noticed that the Colofax account requested an unblock on behalf of Colofac. But later Colofac denied having made that request himself. While both accounts are undoubtedly disruptive and need stay indef-blocked, it is possible that the Colofax account was a Joe job by some other disruptive user. A checkuser would be useful here to determine if the two accounts are related by anything other than name. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that a 3rd blocked/banned user has commented there "That user has absolutely nothing to do with Colofac." presumably referring to Colofax. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding results: So, Colofac was Grwap all along? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - The third account, Amshomjudg, is blocked as a Grawp sock. Endorsing to find out what's going on. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ that Amshomjudg = Colofac. And that Colofax is indeed ❌ to Colofac. Perhaps another more experienced CU may be able to recongize who is really Colofax. - Mailer Diablo 13:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have re-checked and concur with Mailer Diablo's findings. Nothing else that can be done here. –MuZemike 15:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't this ? AGK   [&bull; ]  15:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but per Muzemike, this is as far as we can go. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)