Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Opp2

Opp2

 * = infinitely banned and a sock of Bright888 = 202.251.0.2
 * ->stale but sockpuppet master of Opp and not infinitely blocked
 * ->meatpuppetry at Abacus
 * (ctie.co.jp)
 * possible block evasion all below ip belongs to (plala.or.jp)
 * (ctie.co.jp)
 * possible block evasion all below ip belongs to (plala.or.jp)
 * possible block evasion all below ip belongs to (plala.or.jp)


 * = Opp2


 * Code letter: A, C, E, F
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Note
 * Opp2 uses plala.or.jp user at home (various ip addresses shown below) per the below and his comment.This information is added by User:Appletrees on 2008-01-30
 * Opp2 uses 202.251.0.2 (ctie.co.jp ) - CTIE Corporation (address: 3-21-1 Nihombashi Hama-cho Chuo-ku, Tokyo 103-8430 Japan)
 * Opp2 said he uses IIJ and NIFTY per his comment at 05:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Past SSP and RFCU files on Opp2
 * Suspected sock puppets/Opp2
 * Suspected sock puppets/Opp2 (2nd)‎
 * Suspected sock puppets/opp2


 * Related RFCU files
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Bright888
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/KoreanShoriSenyou


 * Related articles

Opp2 has proved himself as a single-purpose account and as a highly disruptive editor as adding controversial contents without any consensus but with a series of insulting comments to Korean editors at Liancourt Rocks. Besides, Opp2 has been always accused of sockpuppetry due to quite striking resemblance to his editing patterns and similar name of Opp.

While gathering possible evidences for my previous RFCU report, I happened to know User:Opp2 uses (plala.or.jp) network. He revealed himself as the host user at his page twice. Although I scrapped some of plala.or.jp ip addresses from cuisine articles to which I have mainly dedicated, I assumed that Opp2 are connected with orchis29 or Azukimonak or KoreanShoriSenyou. However, in turn Opp2 are another long time sockpuppet master of the infinitely banned socks of Opp, Schola64, Polaris36, Foreastwest (Bright888 is the puppet master of them but not infinitely blocked unlike the mentioned socks) You can see the RFCU result at Requests for checkuser/Case/Bright888.

Yesterday, a vandal poured out his hatred against Koreans with his racial slurs (Fuck Korea..No want Korean) at Asian pear and ‎his denial to include Korea in Pyrus pyrifolia (A Korean article isn't necessary. Plz no more don't write it.) The articles are of course on my watch list. I checked his contributions and he removed Korean related articles in abacus and changed the naming convention of the consensus-reached WP:NC-KO. As the consequence, the vandal has been banned from editing for 2 days. Per his similar errors in English and his ip host, I assumed the vandal may be Opp2. Moreover, Opp2 appeared a few hours after the incidents at abacus article and then reverted to the vandal's revision. The dispute is all about exclusion or inclusion of Korean abacus.


 * 13:20, 27 January 2008 by 220.109.159.35
 * 00:45, 28 January 2008 by Opp2
 * 01:40, 28 January 2008 by Opp2
 * 03:36, 28 January 2008 by Opp2
 * 11:29, 28 January 2008 by Amazonfire
 * 11:29, 28 January 2008 by Amazonfire

But I had to assume a good faith and Opp2 seem to have only engaged in Liancourt Rocks, so that I check the entire history of the article. Opp2 never participated in the article until today and I also double-checked whether any anonymous Japanese editor edited but these three editors seem irrelevant to Opp2 according to the network provider and editing time.


 * 219.98.151.29 (so-net.ne.jp) 05:28, 30 June 2003
 * 219.121.205.187 (enjoy.ne.jp) 09:15, 11 August 2005
 * 219.98.158.25 (so-net.ne.jp) 03:40, 31 March 2006

I believe the block sanction is given to "one person" who violated the community policy, but if the anon 220.109.159.35 is the same person as Opp2, he should not have edited any article during the period per this block long. (from 13:48, 27 January 2008 to 13:47, 29 January 2008) 13:48, 27 January 2008 And he has several past serious issues on sockpuppetry. Like a spider web, I followed some articles which Opp2 edited and 202.251.0.2 (ctie.co.jp) popped out and indeed the ip address is Opp2 and Opp who was infinitely banned for sockpuppetry.


 * 202.251.0.2 (ctie.co.jp) = Opp


 * '''Opp2 = other plara ip users

He has been a long-time editor here although he seems to switch his account to another whenever his puppet show was discovered, or his block records are accumulated. I believe Opp2 has more than just these possible socks. Please scrutinize his accounts and his ip providers (both his residential ip and work ip) In the past, RFCU files on him were almost always rejected because of lack of evidences. And his disruptive editing on cuisine related article can not be condoned any further. I believe this file is more than enough to check on him. Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

✅ that Opp2 is Opp, all the others are ❌. Any admin can block Opp2 as a reincarnation of a blocked account, and disruptive editing related to Liancourt rocks is subject to an Arbitration restriction and can be reported at WP:AE. Thatcher 23:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Can I request admins to block Bright888 as well? The sockpuppet master account is stale but the account can be used in future. And Doesn't he have any more account? I think 220.109.159.35 that I present as an evading sock should be blocked for some period of time for the record on his sockpuppetry.--Appletrees (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It was proven that I was not Bright888. "Opp" had blocked without Check user. It has been understood that the reason for the Opp's block is a mistake by admin. Please release the block of OPP. --Opp2 (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hmm, I'd be glad to have some good pretext for blocking Opp2, because his POV-pushing is indeed very annoying, but I'm not sure how the identity Bright888 = Opp = Opp2 justifies this. Opp was blocked as a sock account, but the user behind it wasn't banned. That's normal; we don't normally indef-ban main accounts because of sockpuppetry, except in egregious cases. Since he then stopped using Bright888 too when he started using Opp2, the result was basically just an account switch. And of course the sockpupptry back in 2006 as such is stale. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Opp2, what are you talking about? -_- You're proven as Opp, a sock of Bright888. Re-read what Fut.Perf. said.
 * However, the result of check user was different. Thatcher say that "all the others are Unrelated." I declares that Opp is not Bright888. Thank you for the contribution.--Opp2 (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Request:Thatcher, can you clarify whether 220.109.159.35 is Opp2 and see if Opp2 has more accounts? If the anon is Opp2, he violated the block policy as well. And --Appletrees (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Request:Thatcher, can you check carefully whether Bright888 is Opp again.--Opp2 (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As a purely technical matter, I can not determine whether Opp or Opp2 is also Bright888 because there is no technical evidence available to me. At Requests for checkuser/Case/Bright888, Essjay confirmed that Opp was Bright888 but I can not check this as Essjay has left Wikipedia and any information he may have kept is gone with him.  This is why sockpuppet determinations come down to judgement as much (or more than) the technical evidence.  Bright888 originally was blocked for a week for sockpuppetry; this is typical with a first offense, the socks are blocked indefinitely and the main account is blocked briefly.  Whether Opp2 = Bright888, and if so what to do about it, will have to be determined by some uninvolved admins looking at all the evidence (contributions, prior checkuser cases, technical findings, etc.)  And this page really in not the place to discuss that.  RFCU is intended to request and report answers on the technical side of things.  You should try WP:ANI or WP:AE. Thatcher 17:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Does not the log remain? I am very regrettable. I declare again that Opp is not Bright888.--Opp2 (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, it doesn't matter much. There are two logical possibilities: Either Opp was Bright888, then Opp was blocked correctly but Opp2 is now simply a renamed reincarnation of Bright888, whose sockpuppeting offense is long since stale (i.e. a legitimate account switch); or Opp never was Bright888, then he should never have been blocked in the first place, and Opp2 is a legitimate new incarnation of Opp. Either way, the story is stale. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, the related argument over whether Opp2 is the ISP vandal, 220.109.159.35 or not at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise is attached to here. The below diff is Thatcher's comment on the matter at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise.

--Appletrees (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2008-01-31T02:39:31 at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

Opp2





 * Code letter: D, E, F,

Replace this text with your explanation of your request for checkuser and examples of policy violations. Wikimachine 03:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reason for a checkuser.  Miranda  04:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As per Requests_for_arbitration/Liancourt_Rocks/Evidence, there has been much evidence that there are sock puppetry going on to push POVish edits & to override consensus (violating 3RR). These same people did not limit their edits to Liancourt Rocks but several other articles interesting their nationalistic bias. Some of these sock puppets & masters have been participating in polls, and when their anon IP addresses or sock puppet accounts have been blocked they go onto a nearby public place to continue their disruption. Although users of both conflicting POVs seem to have committed SOCK, I have only enough time to get RFCU on only one side. (Wikimachine 20:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

Disputes between these editors are presently in arbitration. See, Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks. Under the arbitration policy, this request should probably be deferred to the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 15:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * . --Deskana (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''