Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (2nd)

User:Nyannrunning (2nd)

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Earlier related IP puppets


 * Report submission by

Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence
 * Adding and re-adding the same material, based on a discredited book, to the Jim Morrison page, added a controversial section to the Jim Morrison page here. It was removed by User:Faithlessthewonderboy with good rationale. At that point, User:Nyannrunning inexplicably launched a personal attack against User:Wildhartlivie, who was in no way involved in the article or the addition,  here. A few hours later, the anonymous IP 69.234.176.245 returned the same material here, which again was removed by User:Faithlessthewonderboy. The material was once again returned, somewhat edited but using a large amount of the same material, by User:Debbiesvoucher here and noted on the Morrison talk page here.


 * After the personal attack was made on the Morrison page, the anonymous IP 69.234.176.245 posted this on User talk:Wildhartlivie.


 * A sockpuppet inquiry was launched in November at Suspected sock puppets/Dooyar, the results of which were a bit confounded by the holidays and the abrupt departure of Dooyar during the Thanksgiving holidays. Confirmation of puppetry at that time was also confounded by the use of public internet access points (see IPs above) that are located at UCLA, Los Angeles Public Library, and LAX airport, as well as a number of internet cafe-type locations.


 * A disgreement on the Johnnie Ray article, forced another editor, User:Pinkadelica and myself to request a dispute mediation, with the username at the time, Dooyar. When the mediation wasn't going in her desired direction, she simply disappeared, and the mediation was closed. On February 27, User:Dooyar re-appeared and attempted to reinitiate changes that were under dispute the previous month. I broached re-opening the mediation, as the mediator had offered to do if Dooyar returned. Within a couple days, Dooyar disappeared again. User:Nyannrunning reappeared and took up the identical arguments and an identical specific source, on March 21. It was then that we asked the mediator to get involved again. User:Nyannrunning contended that the article which appeared on the magazine website was vastly different than the printed one. The source was Midwest Today and I contacted the publisher's office to get a copy of the magazine. It was then that we discovered that the material that User:Nyannrunning was attempting to use was fabricated and not in the article at all.


 * 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.
 * 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.


 * Results from Requests for checkuser/Case/Nyannrunning that Possible that Nyannrunning and Dooyar are related.


 * After the Jim Morrison exchange, Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning was initiated by IP4240207xx, with the conclusion of "Please see the results of the UserCompare tool.. I'm pretty sure that Dooyar is a sock."


 * A brief discussion between myself and IP4240207xx regarding the attack and developing the sockpuppet case prompted the anonymous IP 69.234.176.245 to post this on my talk page.


 * The obscure but very similar material relating to a talent agent that has no WP article, added to the Kim Cattrall page by User:Debbiesvoucher here and by User:Nyannrunning here.


 * Definite confirmation by User:Nyannrunning that he/she is the same person as 69.234.176.245 on the Richard Calvin Cox page at this diff, on a page that had no edits since December 16, 2008, the IP is in the middle of a series of edits by User:Nyannrunning. No changes have been made on the page since.

This has become a constant pattern of editing, contentiousness when attempts have been made to resolve editorial disputes, with the use of the sock puppets to bolster or support the position of the other socks on articles. The sockpuppets are used to avoid scrutiny, as well as the more recent use of the anonymous IP edits that violate WP:GHBH by being the "good guy" who protested the connection on Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning added unsigned comments here.
 * Comments

Because of the pattern of disruption, uses of puppets to bolster and support additions and positions, and continue contentiousness, over a period of appr. 6 months, willful disregard for WP policies and guidelines, deliberate avoidance of proper channels of dispute resolution, such as with the Johnnie Ray article, and misrepresentation of material discovered during that mediation, I believe that this myriad of accounts should be indefinitely blocked and new creation of accounts restricted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would also comment that there may be other, undiscovered identities, that have edited unrelated pages and that when questions were raised about alternate accounts, one or another username might not be used for a period of time. This is the case with the User:Dooyar identity, which stopped being used in late February following the abandonment of the Johnnie Ray dispute mediation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Please note that the first sock puppet case Suspected sock puppets/Dooyar was opened on 15 November 2007, and User:Dooyar logged on and left a series of comments on his/her talk page and responded to the sock puppet notice here before logging off. Dooyar again logged in and commented on two talk pages, the last one here at 00:56, 17 November 2007. The User:Nyannrunning identity was created 7 minutes later, at 01:03, 17 November 2007, and User:Debbiesvoucher was created 01:36, 17 November 2007, 27 minutes later. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: As the user who opened the first SSP case against this user along with the checkuser report, I think I should at least comment on this. I fully agree with Wildhartlivie's findings and suspicions. Both of us have dealt with this user several different times and both of us have noticed the all too similar methods of editing, long edit summaries, and attempts to get around or manipulate consensus when they don't get their way. We have both been dealing with this user since late 2007 when all of the identities popped up during the Karyn Kupcinet dispute. Since then, we've dealt with the user on several other rather obscure articles and the MO is always the same. She/he pops up, inserts questionable material that is (almost always) poorly sourced or synthesized. When he/she can't get away with adding the questionable material, they either demand that a dispute resolution be opened (because, apparently, they "don't have the Wikipedia authority to open it) or start and edit war and, natch, disappear if consensus isn't going their way. We've been through that with them TWICE (on Karyn Kupcinet and Johnnie Ray). Since their last attempts to insert questionable material was basically squashed before it got started, he/she has been laying low. Most recently, User:Nyannrunning attempted to recreate a section on the Janis Joplin article that User:Dooyar initially added. (first discussion here). Eventually, it was agreed that the section was too POV and was removed and/or edited significantly. After seeing the similarities between the two (or more) users bringing up the same issues on the same article and after a semi-conclusive checkuser report, I left a note on the Joplin talk page addressing the user and their striking similarities. Naturally, neither Dooyar nor Nyannrunning responded. A few days later, User:Nyannrunning left a snide comment on the Jim Morrison talk page (which have since been removed) about Wildhartlivie who has never even edited that article. The comment was nothing more than ramblings similar to that User:Dooyar left on the the Johnnie Ray mediation page mentioning Rock Hudson and his ex-wife, etc. There are also other instances of the user exhibiting the same uncivil behavior with mentions of McCarthyism, interlibrary loans (whatever those are), etc. I understand that there might be difficulty in connecting all these users since User:Dooyar has not edited in quite awhile, but I'm confident that they are all related. The fact that the user also edits the same fairly obscure articles (Dorothy Kilgallen, Johnnie Ray, etc) is pretty telling. Since this (and another) sockpuppet report has been opened, I'd be willing to bet good money that the user disappears for awhile until the heat is off in hopes of not getting caught. He/she has relied on that method of non-detection in the past and so far, it's worked like a charm. Pinkadelica  08:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking into this. Nyanrunning and Debbiesvoucher made their first edits on 17 November 2007 within an hour of each other, and Dooyar also edited the same day, all in the period between 04:00 and 07:00 UTC. There are other days when two or all three of these users edited. I've collected the data, but I will need some time to analyze it. That will have to wait because I need to sign off for tonight. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

I think these are sockpuppets. There is abundant statistical evidence to support the circumstantial evidence based on extraordinarily detailed edit summaries, which I have never seen to that extent from any other user, and based on the patterns described above and in the previous SSP report last November. I ran an offdays analysis on these three users. All of them were active during the interval from November 17, 2007, until February 29, 2008. Nyanrunning edited on 14 of those days, Debbiesvoucher on 9 days, and Dooyar on 33 days. The probability, based on random distribution of edits during that 104-day interval, that all three users should edit on the same day is 0.004, which is very close to zero. At most, it might happen that they edit once on the same day by a serendipitous fluke. Yet they all edited twice on the same day. The first time was on November 17, 2007, the day Nyanrunning and Debbiesvoucher first edited. Wildhartlivie and I have already given the details. (Just to clarify, Wildhartlivie's times are offset to UTC-4.) The second time was December 19, 2007. Debbiesvoucher and Dooyar also both edited on December 20. The time-stamps of these edits are dead giveaways.


 * 19 December 2007
 * Nyanrunning at 21:30 (He made three more edits, ending at 21:38]
 * Debbiesvoucher at 21:24
 * Dooyar at 21:08


 * 20 December 2007
 * Debbiesvoucher at 22:51
 * Dooyar at 22:40


 * 31 December 2007
 * Nyanrunning at 02:34
 * Debbiesvoucher at 02:38

The chance of this happening randomly for three unrelated users is vanishingly small. I'll suggest giving these users a couple of days to explain away these facts, and if no explanation is forthcoming, block them all. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Brilliant work by Wildhartlivie and Shalom. Blocking all named accounts indef and the one IP 3 months. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)