Jump to content

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/opp2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:opp2[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

opp2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Orchis29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
211.3.113.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

evidence for orchis29 sockpuppet abuse:

please compare [[1]] and [[2]], along with [[3]]. note how linguistic style, contributions, and motives have striking parallels. furthermore, please see [[4]]

evidence for 211 :

[[5]] this is so similar to orchid...and this: [[6]]
Comments

I have made the following observations:

-Though I do not know if this is a common practice, but all these users employ the repetitive use of "--" as a prefix for their signatures. -I have also noticed the striking similarities of the edits and grammar of the user and his/her alleged sockpuppets. These sockpuppets have been used primarily as meatpuppets to support the arguments of opp2. -coincidentally, Orchid29 happens to add a single comment (supporting opp2) while not editing the article and focusing on other controversial ones, and 211 happens to do the same.

I admit that the evidence is weak, but I strongly believe that 211 and orchis29 are sockpuppets of opp2. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Probably, this report is on the line of hot contents disputes.[7][8] If a reporter admit that "the evidence is weak", he/she should not file it. SSP is not a tool for setting a trap to an opponent. --Nightshadow28 (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC) (Oops, I and he[9] also use of "--" as a prefix for signature...)[reply]
  • Comment -Interesting, because I'm preparing a RFC file for possible relations between Orchis29 and others especially KoreanShoriSenyou. There will be way more users and ip anons on my list than this report. Will see. SSP is the very tool for this occasion to sort out disruptive and abusive users for wikipedia. As far as I've known Nightshadow28 has used the SSP tool whether his suspicion is right or not. Odst left a comment about his suspicion over Opp2's sockpuppetry at the Liancourt rocks talk page. However, Nightshadow28 has never involved in editing or discussing problems arisen at Liancourt rocks at all after his account creation unlike Odst, Opp2, me, Orchis29 or others. Moreover, Nightshadow28 hadn't edited any article past 2 weeks. How does he find out this file case and come over here? Very odd and suspicious. Maybe, looking into Nightshadow28's contribution and ip address might be required as well.



  • This case is needed to examine closely to see if the listed users have more accounts to prevent from abusing wikipedia with socketpuppetry. And I alway feel strange that Opp2 wants to look himself as if his English was not good. But tracing back to his early contribution, his English was much better than his current writing. If Opp2 is a sock, I think he deliberately writes contents with poor grammars to prevent himself suspicious. --Appletrees (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... According to point by Appletrees, the target of accusation seems to move to me. I am not a sockpuppet of others. Although Appletrees knows, recently I used WP:SSP for blocking an anon[12], who had done a tit for tat to administrators. Although Appletrees does not know, since a little relation to an arbitration, I watch Liancourt rocks. My comment could be found in the "Talk:Liancourt Rocks#New Rules of conduct" section in the talk page.
  • About anons - It seems not "OCN" but "ODN". And because it is completely unrelated to ISP for which the IP address which Appletrees showed uses by me, I relax very much. In addition, the "writing style" which is described by Appletrees is not concrete at all. Moreover its "interest" is not demonstrated. The width of the activity of me is not so narrow. At least, anon does not show interest to essays. :)
  • Pointing out that my activity is inactive by Appletrees, I will feel it as encouragement. But Appletrees, please remember it. The human who ate the fruit of knowledge, must drudge to buy a bread.
  • Finally, a happy new year. --Nightshadow28 (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, I still feel odd about your sudden appearance here which gave me another thought and I said there is a possibility on your involvement and it is not warranted. The ip address I added are relevant to the anon at the top on Odst's list. If you were innocent, you don't need to worry about yourself. This case is all about Opp2, not you. And my report would focus on KoreanShoriSenyou rather than on Opp2. It is interesting for me to compare my interest (the above anons list) with Odst's. I consider whether adding you on my list has a merit or not. Your name is inscribed in my memory because of a banned user's desperate and vain tryings to prove guilty of you and your alley. All happenings related to him are little comical and intriguing to observers. I've been tracing back on his contribution history but it is very strange that any report related Opp2 (maybe 3 or 4 times) didn't always go through due to something bigger coming. The administrator (you know what I mean per your long observation) blocked an editor for his several unilateral edits on the article, but Opp2 has received just one sanction unlike the mentioned user's infinite block. Opp2 has caused highly disruptive and controversies and never obtained any consensus from editors but is always out of judgment. Don't try to defend him, the below list didn't go through but I think it is worth to look at them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bason0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Nightshadow28
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Opp2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Opp2_%282nd%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Opp2
Will see what happens--Appletrees (talk) 07:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S Nightshadow, your wording is impressive, But Appletrees, please remember it. The human who ate the fruit of knowledge, must drudge to buy a bread. We all know that you and I are not using each other's native language, so please just use simple English instead of the creative maxim(?). A bread-> bread or a loaf of bread. Why don't you ask your friend with advanced English ability for proofreading? Happy New Year!?--Appletrees (talk) 07:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

The IP has only made two edits and Orchis29 about 19 edits, to several different articles. While these users are all interested in the same topics, there is little to prove they are the same user and violating WP:SOCK. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/opp2&oldid=181392639"