Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Opp2 (2nd)

User:Opp2

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

Wikimachine 15:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

We know sock puppetry is going on, but not sure who. I just listed all the possible ones. The links definitely show that Opp2 is a sock puppet master of the anon accounts. Wikimachine 15:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidence


 * Boldlyman
 * An Jung-geun
 * Liancourt Rocks
 * Liancourt Rocks
 * Liancourt Rocks
 * Liancourt Rocks
 * Liancourt Rocks


 * Opp2 - possible sock puppet master
 * Liancourt Rocks
 * Liancourt Rocks
 * Liancourt Rocks
 * Liancourt Rocks
 * Liancourt Rocks
 * Liancourt Rocks
 * Liancourt Rocks
 * Liancourt Rocks
 * Liancourt Rocks
 * Liancourt Rocks
 * Liancourt Rocks


 * Phonemonkey
 * Talk:An Jung-geun
 * Talk:An Jung-geun
 * Talk:An Jung-geun
 * Talk:Liancourt Rocks
 * Talk:Liancourt Rocks
 * Talk:Liancourt Rocks


 * LactoseTI - possible sock puppet master
 * Talk:An Jung-geun
 * Talk:An Jung-geun
 * An Jung-geun
 * Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)


 * Macgruder
 * Talk:Liancourt Rocks
 * Talk:Liancourt Rocks


 * Komdori
 * Talk:Liancourt Rocks
 * Talk:Liancourt Rocks
 * Liancourt Rocks
 * An Jung-geun
 * Talk:An Jung-geun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimachine (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sennen goroshi - possible sock puppet master
 * Talk:An Jung-geun
 * An Jung-geun
 * Liancourt Rocks


 * Erikkukun
 * An Jung-geun
 * Talk:An Junge-geun
 * his/her contributions clearly shows that this one is a trash account.


 * Gogo Dodo
 * Liancourt Rocks


 * Northwest1202
 * Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)
 * Liancourt Rocks
 * Liancourt Rocks
 * Liancourt Rocks
 * This list of contributions shows that this is a trashaway sock puppet account.

All the annon accounts are trashaway accounts (click on contribs). They basically have 1 or 2 edits on reverts.

It's as if a lot of these accounts were created in masses over the course of several months just for the purpose of being sock puppets able to participate in disputes. They usually begin with the user page creation or one or two edits & then they don't do anything for basically 2 months. And then they have 1 or 2 edits & then they're inactive again (best example is Erikkukun & Northwest1202). It's as if they're being furnished to look like a normal account w/ no specific POV aims/interests. This furnishing business goes best with Gogo Dodo - I'm very curious about why s/he would only do these cleanup works (for one year, there's nothing else except cleanup, rvv, etc.) The first thing that s/he does is install popups on his/her monobook. It's as if s/he joined Wikipedia just to do that... wait, where & when did s/he get to find out about the monobook & popups to begin with? It just looks weird, & that one edit, where s/he masked a POV dispute edit as a vandalism (using popups) is where s/he gets caught. Note that Boldlyman does the same, although s/he starts much later since her account's creation. It's like, they want to make the accounts look legit by having edits other than ones on POV disputes & the easiest way to keep many accounts at once is to have their accounts perform those "redirects" and "rvv" and "spelling" corrections. And for Macgruder, his/her account began in December 2004 but w/ only 1 edit nothing happened for 4 months. Then s/he immediately strikes Liancourt Rocks page. And then Macgruder spends billion edits on Liancourt Rocks whenever there is a dispute. Wow. Either Komdori or LactoseTI is controlling Macgruder. Definitely. Also, I think that, as I've said in the arbitration case, Komdori is not a Korean but he says he is (but all his edits are pro-JP, which he excuses w/ Wikipedia's NPOV policy.) Again, this should bring some light into his mal intention, & little reason to doubt that he's not related to this sock puppetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimachine (talk • contribs) 20:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Further analysis - account creation

This not to say that Opp2 is the sockpuppet master of all of these accounts. It's just that I'm not sure which are which. It's my guess that Macgruder is a sockpuppet of LactoseTI. Opp2 controls all the anon accounts in addition to Boldlyman. Accusation on Gogo Dodo is very weak, since he edited Liancourt Rocks only once, but he usually makes clean-up, minor edits - I don't know why he'd ever participate in the Liancourt Rocks dispute (w/o discussion). It may be that someone like user:LactoseTI are furnishing/creating a "clean account" (i.e. 3rd opinion). It may also be that Phonemonkey is a sock puppet of Komdori or Sennen goroshi. Sennen goroshi seems to control Northwest1202 and Erikkukun.

In summary, I suspect not only Opp2, but also Komdori, LactoseTI, and user:Sennen goroshi of being sock puppet masters, and the rest as sock puppets. (Wikimachine 15:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

In conclusion, I suggest that there be a WP:RFCU in tandem with this discussion. That'd clear out the ambiguities. (Wikimachine 20:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC))


 * Comments
 * There is a related arbitration case pending at Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks. If there is any substance to this request, it should be addressed in the arbitration. Newyorkbrad 14:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I proposed temporary injunctions of this report into Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Workshop, because this report includes three involved parties of ongoing arbitration and was submitted by proposer of the arbitration. This report should be suspended. --Nightshadow28 15:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nightshadow, explain further. I'm not sure why this report should be delayed. The arbitration should not deal with sock puppets to begin with & half of the guys are not in the arbitration anyways. (Wikimachine 20:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC))


 * The arbitration is the best place for you which solves this dispute, including "socks matter". As the one who requested the arbitration you'll have to take on the responsibility of resolving dispute via that place. But, in fact, prepareing of next "silver bullet" shows that this report is very unreliable, doesn't it? --Nightshadow28 16:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm finding it hard to have faith in wikimachine and believe that these accusations are not just a ploy related to the Liancourt issues. oh and...of course I'm not a sock puppet or a sock puppet master, wikimachine do you honestly think I care so much about editing a page that I would go to the trouble or creating alter-egos just to win an internet argument? Anyway, anyone who can be bothered to can checkuser me, compare my IPs, or do whatever other devious checks they require - I do not control any sock puppets, neither am I a sock puppet of any other user.Sennen goroshi 18:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I don't find this compelling at all. It looks like you've just scooped up everyone who has edited Liancourt Rocks and tagged them all as sockpuppets, including at least one administrator. I've removed some of your SSP userpage tags. I think you need to present more compelling evidence, such as linguistic and behavioural evidence and/or a positive Checkuser before you can expect people to maintain sockpuppet tags on their userpages. The SSP tags are reputation damaging and it just isn't fair to slap them around based on what looks to me like pretty flimsy evidence. If you come up with compelling evidence, I will happily go and restore the tags, but I notice on the RfArb there is a motion to suspend this SSP and in light of that, it would seem particularly unfair to maintain these tags on their userpages indefinitely. Sarah 22:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh really, I thought that Wikipedia recommended this before WP:RFCU. Who's the administrator who's been tagged? (Wikimachine 03:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

Please see βcommand 20:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * I'm closing this, because all requests for investigation of alleged sockpuppet activity should be part of the arbitration case. Furthermore, as Sarah notes above, the evidence presented here is not compelling, and even if the arbitration were not ongoing I would close this case with no action. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)