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.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Opp2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Report submission by

Wikimachine 23:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Several evidences.

Their user edit profile are here and here.

Both began editing in 2006, Jjok in February and Opp2 in July. Jjok is concerned mainly with subjects disputed between Japan and Korea & Opp2's 38 edits are only on the Dokdo article.

This is a possible strat. Jjok began to participate in the Dokdo article, but decided that he needed additional support, probably Opp2. Jjok would go for the name change while Opp2 go for more specific internal changes in the article. That's why Opp2 never pushed for the name change of the article, even though it would be very probably that he would. It is too fishy for a user to edit only on the Dokdo article...

Both editors have reverted my edits with reasonable explanations in the edit summary with the same reasons "consensus reached" (similarly worded). History is here. (Wikimachine 23:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comments

I think this is likely, but I don't see a smoking gun--a Checkuser might help.

Opp2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account whose edits all relate to Dokdo--the other article he edits, Rusk documents, has to do with the territorial dispute over Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks. His edits to user talk pages spring from disputes on these pages. Jjok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) edits a wider range of articles, but has a strong interest in Dokdo and other territorial disputes involving Japan, and also edited Talk:Rusk Documents about a month after Opp2 (e.g., this diff). Opp2 and Jjok have a similar POV on Dokdo, supporting the Japanese claim to the island. They are clearly not native English speakers, and their command of English is not strong, to the point where it's difficult to understand what they're trying to say. Perhaps because their English is not good, they correct their posts on talk pages multiple times in the space of several minutes. During a revert war on Dokdo from 24 Jan-30 Jan, both users reverted with similar edit summaries (only Opp2 and Jjok's edits are shown):

• 19:28, 25 January 2007 Opp2 (Talk | contribs) (ｒｖ　This version isn't agreed and argued at all.)
• 21:59, 25 January 2007 Opp2 (Talk | contribs) (rv. The part of Other Maps and records did not have opposite(See talk page). Opening part is a 12/23 edition. My edit doesn't enter.)
• 22:36, 26 January 2007 Jjok (Talk | contribs)
• 07:22, 27 January 2007 Opp2 (Talk | contribs) (rv.)
• 09:22, 27 January 2007 Jjok (Talk | contribs) (discussion is still going)
• 08:24, 28 January 2007 Jjok (Talk | contribs) (rv edits. the neutrarity discussion and mediation process are still going. see talk page for the discussion about neutrarity with summarized past archives)
• 07:26, 29 January 2007 Opp2 (Talk | contribs) (rv. no discussion and consensus edition)
• 19:12, 29 January 2007 Opp2 (Talk | contribs) (rv. no discussion and consensus edition.)
• 00:06, 30 January 2007 Opp2 (Talk | contribs) (rv Because mutual agreement is not obtained, it is mediating.)

Opp2 and Jjok are the only users on their side of the revert war, and use similar justifications for reverting--discussion is ongoing, no consensus, mediation is continuing.

It's worth noting that Opp2 and Jjok have denied the allegation at Talk:Dokdo#Sockpuppetting. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

• These accounts have been inactive for some time. The Dokdo article seems to have significant activity from SPAs, so the situation may warrant further scrutiny, but I don't think keeping this SSP case open is going to lead anywhere. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]