Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ColourWolf (3rd nomination)

User:ColourWolf

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

Arbiteroftruth (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Report submission by

Both have made edits similar to what ColourWolf has done: inserting fake storylines to Singaporean drama series.
 * Evidence

Details Mankansutra inserted these rubbish BachelorDegree007 inserted this. All of ColourWolf's edits have made mentions of cyborgs. This qualifies as evidence under WP:DUCK. Powerrangers2008 is deeply obsessed with the page on Li Nanxing, a prominent Singaporean television actor. This fits two description of ColourWolf: editing only Singaporean Arts and Entertainment contents, and making legitimate edits to establish legitimacy, and then start vandalizing. Read above for reasons to tag SickManBay, as well as for Plagues of Truth (in addition, Plagues of Truth edits science fantasy and Power Rangers-like articles, another hallmark of ColourWolf's edits) These vandals have plagued us for far too long. Please hard-ban all.

What the hell is wrong with you? Removing my comments here when I read somewhere on Wikipedia that I am allowed to make a case here?--SickManBay (talk) 07:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Your edits here (and elsewhere) means you have passed the duck test, in that you act and edit like a vandal-cum-sockpuppet operator. Not only have your edits been solely on Singaporean television contents here on Wikipedia, you have disrupted this proceeding (also a hallmark of ColourWolf's sockpuppets). Under WP:DUCK, I do not have to assume your innocence here. You have prove your innocence. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know who is he, but what innocence I have to prove? All I have did is make some edits to some pages. Is it a crime to do that? Why don't I report you to get you banned for making some edits as well? --SickManBay (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm a fan of The Unbeatables. Where did I make similar edits to the above users? I for one did not edit Cyborgs.--SickManBay (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edits here (and elsewhere) means you have passed the duck test, in that you act and edit like a vandal-cum-sockpuppet operator. Not only have your edits been solely on Singaporean television contents here on Wikipedia, you have disrupted this proceeding (also a hallmark of ColourWolf's sockpuppets). Under WP:DUCK, I do not have to assume your innocence here. You have prove your innocence. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know who is he, but what innocence I have to prove? All I have did is make some edits to some pages. Is it a crime to do that? Why don't I report you to get you banned for making some edits as well? --SickManBay (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, ColourWolf's socks also claimed they don't "know him", and that was proven to be a lie in the end. Besides the disrupting edits you have made here, your other "constructive" (if we can even call it that) edits here are:
 * Holland V (which was targeted by ColourWolf's socks before)
 * The Unbeatables (also targeted by ColourWolf)
 * Spice Siblings (not targetted by ColourWolf, but his sock's edits are purely on MediaCorp's drama series)
 * Honour and Passion (one of the first pages to be targeted by ColourWolf last year)

From where I am sitting, your edits are suspect at best. Once bitten, twice shy. You have got to come up with a better reason than that. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. So a hundred other users who also edited these articles are not targetted? Right. I myself like to laugh at vandals. Check out the Evolution article, where it is frequently replaced with religious text by User:Tile Join as well as vandalised by many other weirdos. Am I going to be suspect just because in a scenario I happened to edit those text?--SickManBay (talk) 07:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a user who has made more than 6,000 edits to Wikipedia, and I am also a dedicated vandal fighter. I have nothing to be ashamed about, and I am definitely not a vandal. In contrast, you have made 22 edits, and 19 out of the 22 edits are either disruptive or fits ColourWolf's edit MO. That is an 86% matching rate, quite suspicious for a person who so claims his innocence. You have also edited purely on Singaporean Arts and Entertainment articles, and by that, all your edits matches the areas ColourWolf's socks targets. So you tell me, who is suspicious here? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoa! I just checked out your profile. Pretty controversial huh? Banned for 12 hours for making personal attacks on other users. I'm not being personal myself here, but stop being so sensitive. I'm myself a debater, so I know whether you are trying to be biased or not. How does it fit the colourwolf's main objective? What are the details of the main objective? How are those so-called 19 similar edits so similar? Just because they are minor edits?

Give me a break.--SickManBay (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I will give the evidence here.


 * 1) ColourWolf's edits does not extend beyond Singaporean A&E contents, or fantasy sci-fi stories. (100% of your edits are on Singaporean A&E topics)
 * 2) ColourWolf's socks spend their early days making legitimate (albeit minor) edits, before turning bad and inserting malicious, fake storylines en masse onto many MediaCorp drama pages. (your edits have all been minor)
 * 3) ColourWolf's socks have been known to protest their "innocence". They sometimes assert their identity, or fool other Wikipedians by posting a banned notice on their userpage, and continue vandalizing (you have so professed your innocence here. Did you know empty vase makes the most noise?)
 * 4) ColourWolf's socks have been known to disrupt SSP proceedings (you have done that)

Also, my blocking a month and a half ago was a lapse of judgment on my part, and now that I am unblocked, this has no relevance in this debate whatsoever. In fact, you have just violated WP:NPA. Mind your words here on Wikipedia. You are only making suspect that you are a ColourWolf sock. Like I said, if you are innocent, the fair, impartial system here will prove it so. If you are a sock... well, you know how we deal with them. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I will defend myself here then. 1) A hundred other users also focus ALL their edits on Singaporean articles as well. And regarding sci-fic stories, I've no interest in editing those, and you can clearly see from that. Legitimate and minor edits? 2.) A hundred other users do that as well. There are many users who do that as well, they edit once or twice or tweak here and there, and goes away indefinitely, just that they happen not to catch your over-sensitive radar. 3.) I do not know about this so I will not comment on it. 4.) What do you mean by disrupt? I'm doing a rightful thing by removing my name from there and posting my comments defending myself here.

Even if I were making personal attacks, the point that you called yourself an established editor is "an argument from authority." Does being an established editor automatically makes your case right and you should start calling for bans on everyone? No.

Administrators, please do see through this admin's bias against singaporean editors.--SickManBay (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not pull out the race card. I am not biased against Singaporean editors. In fact, I have edited on Singaporean articles (not Singaporean A&E only, but Singaporean contents in general, in addition to other areas and topics). I am also a member of the WIkiProject Singapore here. That is hardly a bias against Singaporeans, is it not? I will say it again, if you are innocent, Wikipedia will prove it, and I will be the first one to say I might have been wrong on this one. Empty vases makes the most noises, so you banging on about your "innocence" is not helping, at all. As for you removing your name from this SSP, that is vandalism, and if you had gone on doing this, I would have reported you in a heartbeat and have you blocked for disruption. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What am I banging about my innocence and empty vases? I don't like your insinuative attitude. I do not like being accused of these things, which is why I'm typing here in the first place. Your logic is that John edits, Jack edits, so John = Jack. I will see how the higher up administrators will reply to you. I'm tired of replying here to you, so I hope the admins will do something to remedy the supposed "sounds like duck makes it a duck". And also, I don't see this "colourwolf" defending himself anyway from his account looks.


 * Note to top admins: AOT's accusations that over 80% of my edits are like ColourWolf is blatantly biased and wrong. I have not did any edits that are in anyway similar to User:ColourWolf at all. And also AOT has accused another user wrongly. User:Makansutra's edits on The Unbeatables are legitimate, I can vouch for that.--SickManBay (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You are wrong about ColourWolf, SickManBay. He has professed his innocence once or twice. Recently, his socks have gone bold, and decided to blatantly tell everyone that they are ColourWolf. Your current actions can be interpreted as a change back to his original MO. In fact, I am inclined to believe so. Your edits also matches ColourWolf's completely (minor edits now, blatant lies later, although the latter part has not happened). So there, you are officially a suspect. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. So we have an unpredictable colourwolf who admits or deny anytime he or she likes if that's what you are saying? Then who are you to predict his actions successfully? And who are you to determine that I'm one? The point is whether I declared or not still puts me as suspect, so I'm insulted. I already put forth my simple case: Everyone makes minor edits, and I've expressed myself long enough here, so I'm logging off to avoid further clashing with this AOT admin. I'm sick of people being so overly sensitive. Go on and violate my privacy IP if you want. --SickManBay (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This case might be better off by going to RFCU OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

ColourWolf IPs are way too dynamic with way too many users for a CU to be any good. Handle on behavior and other on wiki evidence.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

All blocked. Tiptoety talk 03:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)