Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ColourWolf

User:ColourWolf

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

Arbiteroftruth (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Report submission by


 * Evidence
 * - A comparison of a legit edit and edits made by the IP listed above. The storyline features the same radical, terrorist oriented crap that ColourWolf has inserted on Wikipedia almost a year ago.
 * Plagues Of Truth, although he has not made any bad edits, fits the category of ColourWolf sockpuppets for two reasons: A. the user edits only Power Ranger and Singaporean actors and dramas, the set of pages that ColourWolf edits. Neither he nor ColourWolf has ventured beyond those pages. B. The account is trying to establish legitimacy before massively vandalizing Wikipedia. ColourWolf has been known to do this before. User:PowerClown123 is a good example.

ColourWolf's reign of terror has gone on long enough. It's time for everyone to stand up against this.


 * Comments
 * Plagues of Truth has made three edits, all of which seem to be in good faith. Surely this is a bit silly to then say that, because his 3 edits have been about the same two topics he is therefore a sock? The weird thing about someone making good edits to establish legitimacy before massively vandalising topics is that it looks exactly the same as someone making good edits to establish legitimacy. After looking at his edits one of the edits is nothing to do with the power rangers; your evidence is therefore "he has made good faith edits to one of the topics that ColourWolf has, therefore he must be a sockpuppet of colourwolf". By slapping a big "suspected sock" on this users page you may have scared off a potentially valuable user; editing the same page as colourwolfs socks is not grounds on its own for being socks; if it was then from the page history you'd have been blocked for all your reversions. Ironholds 10:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

User:ColourWolf

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

Arbiteroftruth 17:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Report submission by

- made by ColorWolf - made by 218.186.9.4 - made by 203.116.59.28
 * Evidence

All edits contain the same content. All are fictitious information, and I have verified them as fake after watching the series after the Internet. These information also found its way into the Wu Cheng Yi article.

These users have seriously compromised the integrity of the Honour and Passion page with their fake edits and bogus sources.

As proven by the edits made above, all three users have some form of coordination, and thus, they are co-conspirators in a vandalism attack.

I moved the reporter's comments up, to comply with standard formatting. I'm not sure what we have here. It looks like sock puppetry, but I'm not 100% sure. I also don't know what to do about it - maybe block the IPs for a day for revert warring, but we can't permanently block the IPs because the edits were not simple vandalism. Likewise for the main user: maybe block him for a day, and if he gives a good explanation, then unblock. The article might need to go through dispute resolution. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments


 * There is no need to go through DR, because the contents this guy has inserted is FAKE! People have verified that. This is not a dispute. This user severely crippled the integrity of a page by inserting fake contents! We are not arguing about POV or opinions here. We are arguing about the veracity (or lack thereof) of the edits ColourWolf has made. Arbiteroftruth 00:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Could be socks but looks like edit content dispute too. Pls provide diffs showing false info. Also, you may know it's false, but how can I tell that? Much of this is in Chinese too. Rlevse 02:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments


 * I will offer this. The following links are links to the final episode of the Honour & Passion TV series on YouTube.

Part 1 of 5 Part 2 of 5 Part 3 of 5 Part 4 of 5 Part 5 of 5

Mediacorp Channel 8 provides English subtitle for this show, so there exists no language barriers. Look at them and you will know that the Colourwolf edits are absurd and bogus. Arbiteroftruth 06:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the fact that having to verify sources by reading subtitles from a Youtube video is annoying, the only concrete evidence that these users are socks is that they edit the same pages, perform (roughly) the same edits, and the IPs have the same ISP. Other than that, a checkuser would have to get this one, as the only thing we can block them for is edit warring. Shadow1  (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * This isn't strong evidence of sockpuppetry. At this point, User:ColourWolf looks more like a throwaway account than a genuine contributor (that could easily change if s/he returns and contributes constructively). A genuine problem here is that both User:ColourWolf and User:Stormynight91 violated 3RR on Honour and Passion on October 10; both users will be warned.


 * I have no opinion on the content of the articles in dispute, and hope that someone can find a better way to verify the content than a YouTube video. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)