Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nyannrunning

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

Nyannrunning


Following a situation where one of the IPs associated with this individual posted my real name and email address on an article talk page, oversight was required to wipe that posting. Following that, on suggestion of User:Rlevse, I had sent a rather lengthy compilation of data about this person to both Thatcher and to Alison. I've not received a response on it from either. I know Thatcher was off for a bit. I also left a note for Alison to inquire as to whether she received it, but no response yet. In the meanwhile, this new situation has come up. I posted this twice on WP:AN/I and was told to take it to checkuser because they aren't familiar with the case. I'm not entirely sure I know what checkuser will establish that we don't already know about this person, but I hope it results in a block. If not, I want to know who I have to go to to get a block in place. My privacy was violated and this person continues to pop in and edit contentiously, in avoidance of bans.
 * G

Multiple blocks have been placed based on sock cases regarding this user, including the original checkuser case below, and
 * Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (2nd)
 * Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (3rd) which have included editing diffs and includes some rather intricate statistical work, resulting in conclusion that IPs in the 76.93. range are IP socks. Specific to this report are approximately identical edits to Wonderland Avenue to include and return non-relevant material related to an ancient arrest of MacKenzie Phillips:
 * here by sock master User:Nyannrunning
 * here by proven sock puppet User:Evanbayh
 * here by one IP proven used by sock master here
 * here by sock puppet User:Seth4u2nvcs.


 * Related IP in range 76.93.8x has returned to again add same material here and here.
 * Requesting longer block on 76.93. range based on evading ban (as well as recent more serious issues addressed by oversight). Thanks.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildhartlivie (talk • contribs) || -- lucasbfr  talk 17:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The range has other editors on it, and the activity here seems to be at a lull, so I don't think a range block is advisable at this time. I don't see any likely candidates for current sockpuppets. Thatcher 00:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: What about IP 206.170.104.57, the IP from which my real name and email was posted to Talk: Gertrude Lawrence? While I appreciate that the posting was well scrubbed from the site, which means there are no diffs available to include, it is a bit outrageous that such an aggrievous act occurred and nothing resulted from it, leaving the sock master with the impression she can continue when she is so moved. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That IP is a public library. What else do you think should be done? Thatcher 10:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then it is an IP at a public library that has had the sum total of eight edits made to Wikipedia in total from site. Ever. The first three were in the summer of 2006 - one each in June, July and August. Sixteen months later, the next one was made to the Karyn Kupcinet article, which was made by this sock master. The remaining two were a few months apart. I'm wondering how the possibility of future anonymous edits from an IP that has had eight separate edits in 27 months is equitable to the well over 13,000 productive edits from an editor in good standing whose personal privacy and safety was jeopardized by the person who made over 1/3 of those eight edits and 60% of the edits in the past year, and why it isn't worth even a specific IP block for a period of time. Those actions were a lot more serious than the majority of actions by other editors who are blocked fairly quickly for the relatively minor offenses of incivility and edit warring. Hit and miss tenditiousness is what those of us who have dealt with this sock master have come to expect. She may well go to another access point, but at least the one from which she crossed a major line will no longer be of service. I don't understand why it isn't feasible to block this IP address. My experience with public access computers is that identification and sign-in is required to use the terminal and if other users pop up there that want to use Wikipedia anonymously, then it becomes the responsibility of the library to deal with the specific logged user whose actions created the problem, rather than Wikipedia do nothing at all about it in case someone wants to make an anonymous edit six months from now. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have anon-blocked it. Note, though, that that has nothing to do with the RFCU request, hence Thatcher's reply. -- lucasbfr  talk 09:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Nyannrunning


Nyanrunning also made two comments about "interlibrary loans" diff and an uncivil comment that Wildhartlivie should "get help" diff. Both comments were made towards Wildhartlivie by Debbiesvoucher on her talk page regarding the Kupcinet dispute 2008 diffdiff back in January. Another dispute that Nyannrunning was not a part of. Dooyar was blocked in November for the same "get help" suggestion and other incivilities, diff diff and also pressed the interlibrary loan issue at the Karyn Kupcinet dispute resolution diff. I think this user is violating WP:SOCK among other things. Basically this user lays dormant for a bit and then starts up with disputes regarding content on fairly obscure articles. We've been dealing with this user for months now, most recently regarding the Johnnie Ray article. Both Wildhartlivie and I opened a dispute with Dooyar in January. Dooyar disappeared during the mediation and we wrote the article without her. This month, Nyannrunning pops up demanding to change content. When we disagreed with her sources, we were forced to reopen mediation. Now, the same familiar patterns are arising again. Between the two of us, we've noticed similar rambling explanations from all the users when disputing content or sources, both basically telling us to go look up microfilm or kinescopes of television shows as evidence or proof that their sources are correct.diffdiff Also, all leave very similar, word-y edit summaries and tend to stick to the same articles. (Nyannrunning, Debbievoucher, Dooyar) Pinkadelica (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * G
 * Supporting evidence: During a discussion regarding a dispute on the Johnnie Ray talk page, User:Nyannrunning made a comment regarding User:Wildhartlivie's vision disability.diff - 2nd paragraph This fact was disclosed by Wildhartlivie months ago when User:Dooyar was in a dispute with us on the (now archived) Karyn Kupcinet talk page - diff, a dispute that Nyannrunning was not a part of. This comment was not disclosed again anywhere on Wikipedia.
 * G
 * Supporting evidence: During a discussion regarding a dispute on the Johnnie Ray talk page, User:Nyannrunning made a comment regarding User:Wildhartlivie's vision disability.diff - 2nd paragraph This fact was disclosed by Wildhartlivie months ago when User:Dooyar was in a dispute with us on the (now archived) Karyn Kupcinet talk page - diff, a dispute that Nyannrunning was not a part of. This comment was not disclosed again anywhere on Wikipedia.
 * G
 * Supporting evidence: During a discussion regarding a dispute on the Johnnie Ray talk page, User:Nyannrunning made a comment regarding User:Wildhartlivie's vision disability.diff - 2nd paragraph This fact was disclosed by Wildhartlivie months ago when User:Dooyar was in a dispute with us on the (now archived) Karyn Kupcinet talk page - diff, a dispute that Nyannrunning was not a part of. This comment was not disclosed again anywhere on Wikipedia.
 * G
 * Supporting evidence: During a discussion regarding a dispute on the Johnnie Ray talk page, User:Nyannrunning made a comment regarding User:Wildhartlivie's vision disability.diff - 2nd paragraph This fact was disclosed by Wildhartlivie months ago when User:Dooyar was in a dispute with us on the (now archived) Karyn Kupcinet talk page - diff, a dispute that Nyannrunning was not a part of. This comment was not disclosed again anywhere on Wikipedia.
 * Supporting evidence: During a discussion regarding a dispute on the Johnnie Ray talk page, User:Nyannrunning made a comment regarding User:Wildhartlivie's vision disability.diff - 2nd paragraph This fact was disclosed by Wildhartlivie months ago when User:Dooyar was in a dispute with us on the (now archived) Karyn Kupcinet talk page - diff, a dispute that Nyannrunning was not a part of. This comment was not disclosed again anywhere on Wikipedia.


 * that Nyannrunning and Dooyar are related. Debbiesvoucher is too old to check. Thatcher 11:00, 3 April 2008 (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.''