Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (3rd)

User:Nyannrunning (3rd)

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence
 * Nyannrunning was blocked permanently following a sock puppet case which was confirmed on 2 June 2008 as evidenced here.
 * Since that time, User:Evanbayh returned on 10 June 2008 to re-add identical material to the Wonderland Avenue article here, which was originally added by User:Nyannrunning on 30 May 2008 here.
 * User:Evanbayh's article was tagged as a suspected sock puppet of User:Nyannrunning at that time, but actually was blocked for using a username of a member of Congress from my home state here.
 * The anonymous IP 69.234.189.198 came in and returned a large portion of identical material here, originally added as mentioned above by User:Nyannrunning here to the Wonderland Avenue article, which was returned by User:Evanbayh here, and returned it once again here, after it was removed as a contribution by sock puppet. The material was then once again removed by User:WikiDon here as material added by a banned user, after which I made a correction to the publishing year of a book in the article, which was one of the points raised, and which I then verified, in the reversion by the anonymous IP 68.234.189.198. The newly created account User:Seth4u2nvcs restored the article here to the version last reverted by IP 68.234.189.198 here. This is significant because this was only the third edit the brand new account made, eight minutes after registering, which followed sequential edits the account made at Jim Morrison and Pamela Courson, and which returned and supported material first added by the banned sock master User:Nyannrunning. The Jim Morrison aticle is also one of the articles involved in the Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (2nd) case which resulted in the ban on the accounts.
 * User:Debbiesvoucher, who was determined to be a sock puppet of User:Nyannrunning in the aforementioned sock puppet case of User:Nyannrunning here, made this addition to the Pamela Courson article on 31 May 2008. The material was removed based on the addition by a sock puppet. The anonymous IP 69.234.189.198 returned the majority of identical material to the article in the revision here, and returned it again here, after I had removed it as contributions by a sock puppet. The anonymous IP 68.234.189.198 reverted the deletion, including some style and copy edits I did in the interim, here at Revision as of 11:29, 23 June 2008, and 6 minutes later User:Seth4u2nvcs fixed punctuation of the same article here.
 * The first edit in the new rush of edits made by anonymous IP 69.234.189.198 was here. Three minutes later, the new account User:Seth4u2nvcs was created. User:Seth4u2nvcs went to the Pamela Courson article and fixed punctuation here. User:Seth4u2nvcs then made this minor edit to the Jim Morrison article, then reverted the removal of the material
 * The anonymous IP 69.234.176.245, which was part of the User:Nyannrunning sock puppet case here, is seen through traceroute to originate from adsl-69-234-189-198.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net, an ADSL account through Pacific Bell in Irvine California. The anonymous IP 69.234.189.198, which returned the material to the Pamela Courson article tonight traceroutes to originate from adsl-69-234-176-245.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net, an ADSL account through Pacific Bell in Irvine California.
 * Anonymous IP 69.234.189.198 used the phrase "get some help" in the edit summary here, as was discussed in the sock puppet determination here, in the sixth section of evidence. User:Seth4u2nvcs approached another editor who had left a welcome template on his/her talk page here, again referring to his/her opinion of User:Wildhartlivie, heading the section "Help me cope with an unbalanced editor regarding Jim Morrison-related articles."
 * On the Marilyn Monroe article, on 27 May 2008, the now banned User:Nyannrunning made this change to the article, pressing the inclusion of some information from a book by Anthony Summers, using this edit summary: "In Anthony Summers' 1986 paperback edition of Goddess, which stayed in print for 20 years via several publishers, Summers says Jack Clemmons was an anti-communist witch hunter at the time Monroe died.", which was removed later because no sourcing was provided. User:Nyannrunning returned the material, expanded, with reference, as well as removing a large portion of changes in the interim, here. The change was reverted because it was done as a restore earlier version which removed valid article changes, including fixing errors introduced by vandalism. User:Nyannrunning returned the material without removing the fixes, here, with the edit summary "There. I didn't roll back any other edits. Anthony Summers doubt of Jack Clemmons is footnoted. Tony Curtis reference can be supported by an online Larry King Live transcript, but is that necessary?" User:Nyannrunning was subsequently blocked permanently on 2 June 2008 following a sock puppet case. This material was removed on 11 June 2008 here, with the rationale that "Info already in the "Death of Marilyn Monroe" page." On 12 June 2008, the anonymous IP 67.103.188.122 returned the material here, which actually appear to be a complete restore back 121 intermediate edits to the last version by User:Nyannrunning, plus the addition of another sentence, which can be seen here, with the somewhat deceptive edit summary, which ignores all the other changes on the page, of "Footnotes support this new opening paragraph that emphasizes the dead end created by Pat Newcomb, the only surviving witness." This change was reverted by another editor, after which, IP 67.103.188.122 reverted again, saying "Footnotes support the new opening paragraph that emphasizes the dead end created by Pat Newcomb, the only living witness to Monroe's death scene". The change was reverted by User:Selket, who left a standard revert notice on the IP talk page, which suggests reading the introduction to editing. IP 67.102.24.106 reverted it again two minutes later, here, saying "I have read the editing instructions, Mr. Selknet. Your version is flawed because Jack Clemmons is one of many police officials who commented on the case, and a bad one at that", and reverted a third time one minute later, here, saying "Is Mr. / Ms. Selket reading what he / she is destroying ? Please read before you destroy." Another editor reverted the change several hours later. Many hours later, the anonymous IP 76.93.88.30 reverted this here, with the edit summary "Jack Clemmons was one of many police officers to report to the death scene. Anthony Summers has doubted his credibility, claiming he witchhunted communists when Marilyn was alive", which was reverted a few hours later by another editor. Each of the last edits, by three different IPs, reverted to a version initially written by User:Nyannrunning, were done in support of material from Anthony Simmons' book, involved massive changes to the article, included a long deleted image, and used elaborate edit summaries. This series of edit reversions establishes a direct link between the banned sockmaster User:Nyannrunning and the IP 76.93.88.30.
 * In responding to this sock puppet case below, User:Seth4u2nvcs initially posted her response here, under the anonymous IP 76.93.88.30. Immediately following that, User:Seth4u2nvcs removed the IP signature and signed the response using his/her username here. This extends the direct link between banned sock master User:Nyannrunning and User:Seth4u2nvcs.
 * In all cases above, the editor gives, as commented on by Shalom in his summary of statistical findings in the Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (2nd) case, "extraordinarily detailed edit summaries, which I have never seen to that extent from any other user", which can be observed at history pages for all the above named accounts and IPs.

It is compellingly clear that User:Evanbayh, User:Seth4u2nvcs and the various anonymous IPs listed above are sock puppets of the previously banned puppetmaster account User:Nyannrunning and should be permanently blocked for violation of WP:SOCK and evading a block. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments

I am not a "sock puppet." I am a human being who decided two days ago to contribute to articles related to Jim Morrison. I am very much interested in him. Can someone please explain how you're getting me mixed up with a U.S. congressman from Indiana? There are millions of people who study details about Morrison's girlfriend, Pamela Courson. Esquire is a legitimate source. The cover story by Eve Babitz came out when Oliver Stone's Doors movie was playing in 1991. Can someone please explain why this weird inquisition is going on? Thank you. Seth4u2nvcs (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

<< The entire question, and the one raised in the sock puppet case, is why and how you, as a supposed newbie, came into articles that User:Nyannrunning and User:Debbiesvoucher (who are proven and banned sock puppets, along with User:Dooyar and a number of IP addresses) had edited, and just happened to find in a history, within just 11 minutes after you registered, and restored verbatim, paragraphs written by that particular person. >> -- excerpt from statements made by Wikipedia editor "AndToToToo" on my Talk page.


 * Evidence that a user is familiar with Wikipedia [...] is, by itself, insufficient basis to treat the user as a sock puppet. Best regards Ryttaren (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't evidence in this case. As it says, it is a copy of discussion that was on Seth4u2nvcs's talk page, between him/her and another editor. I have no clue why Seth4u2nvcs chose to copy it over to here, but it was pasted here and  Seth4u2nvcs's response to this can be viewed below. Please refer to the rather extensive evidence in the section above which clearly establishes a direct link between the accounts previously established as sock puppets and Seth4u2nvcs. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Within just eleven minutes? Doors fans are reading and reacting to Wikipedia articles much more frequently than every eleven minutes. If it's a Wikipedia article about, say, Lord Buckley, then eleven minutes is suspicious. His article is lucky to get a new edit once a month. But the Pamela Courson and Wonderland Avenue articles to which you are referring have a lot to do with the Doors. How is that not relevant to the sock puppet case? At least every five seconds, a Doors fan is contemplating an addition to a Doors-related article. I'm trying not to be loquacious here. Can you suggest something I should do regarding this sockpuppet case that I'm not already doing? Seth4u2nvcs (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Having dealt with this user previously along with Wildhartlivie, it is quite clear that Seth4u2nvcs is Dooyar, Nyannrunning, etc. As stated, this user has a long history of editing the same articles in the same unique ways which is how he/she was caught to begin with. The fact that Seth4u2nvcs is reinserting the same info that Nyannrunning (confirmed sock) was so eager to include on the Wonderland Avenue (which, literally, only a handful of people have edited) speaks volumes. All of these users are pushing the same POV on the same articles and again, they all have the same edit mannerisms. This isn't a new user who just happens to have some Wikipedia knowledge, this is a blocked user attempting to evade a block. The articles being edited are fairly obscure (save for Jim Morrison) and I find it highly suspect that different people who are supposedly not the same person or at least somehow related to one another are editing the same articles in the same manner using the very same sources and the very same arguments. I'm all for assuming good faith, but this is pushing it. Pinkadelica  01:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I restored the content written by Eve Babitz because I didn't know those two contributors were sock puppets. I was a newbie. I recognized the name Eve Babitz, and I tried to restore it to the article even though people have never heard of her. I was like, "Hey, I remember her." Her name is from the old Esquire issue that dates from the period of Oliver Stone's Doors movie. Unlike many other writers who have written about Morrison, she has done a lot of stuff not related to rock music, and it came back to me. I was heartened to see others learned something from her Esquire article, and I wasn't thinking about the possibility of sock puppets. What more can I say? Seth4u2nvcs (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a little something more I can say. Pinkadelica is wrong to say the articles I edited are "fairly obscure." The Doors have such a large following that any articles closely related to them, such as Jim Morrison's wife and a book written by someone who spent the 1970s believing Jim was alive, are going to get edits. Seth4u2nvcs (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Wonderland Avenue article has had 23 edits since its creation on 26 January 2006. Prior to the 30 May 2008 addition by the banned sock master User:Nyannrunning, there were six total edits to the page in 28 months. User:Nyannrunning made 3 edits on 20 May. Of the 14 remaining edits, all of which were done in support of, or the reversion to, the version created by User:Nyannrunning, 8 were done as reverts by a banned sock puppet. The remaining 6 were all to revert or re-add the material by the sock puppet. The evidence outlined above creates a direct link through edits from User:Nyannrunning, anonymous IPs, and edits User:Evanbayh, to User:Seth4u2nvcs. 23 edits in 28 months is actually more than fairly obscure, and to see a queue of edits made to added or restore nearly identical material is fairly conclusive. The Pamela Courson article is more frequently edited than Wonderland Avenue, however, in 2008, there have been only 48 edits. 21 of those have occurred since the banned sock puppet of User:Nyannrunning, User:Debbiesvoucher, added the paragraph regarding the Eve Babitz article. It was removed as a contribution by a sock puppet by myself on 3 June 2008. Of the 19 remaining edits, 5 were done in the interval from 3 June to 23 June, when the IP 69.234.189.198 restored the identical material, with a few expansions, first added by User:Debbiesvoucher. Since then, of the remaining 14, the IP 69.234.189.198 or User:Seth4u2nvcs made nearly 30% of the edits to restore the material added by User:Nyannrunning. The others were either reverts to a version not contributed a sock puppet, or to do other clean up. Each of the edits by the IP 69.234.189.198 or User:Seth4u2nvcs had lengthy edit summaries advocating the Esquire magazine. Please see the large amount of evidence presented above that establishes direct connections from the banned sock puppet accounts, the IP 69.234.189.198 and User:Seth4u2nvcs. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (EC) My comment clearly states The articles being edited are fairly obscure (save for Jim Morrison). I've seen the history of the Morrison article, I'm fully aware that it's not an obscure article which is why I added the content contained in the parenthesis. As usual, these comments are about everything but the issue. This isn't a content dispute, this about a banned user attempting to evade a block once again. The POV pushing and attempt to create support for that POV is secondary at the moment. Pinkadelica  21:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you clearly stated the Jim Morrison article is supposedly an exception to the obscurity. You are wrong, however. The articles about Courson and Wonderland Avenue aren't "fairly obscure." Both of them interest Doors fans, and there are literally tens of millions of them. The fan base is so huge that even offshoots of the Morrison article can attract contributors at any hour of the day or night, erratically or on a regular basis. Doors fans can be unpredictable. Wildhartlivie's reasoning about X number of edits happening after the ban of a sock puppet makes no sense. The contributors are contributing because they are interested in the Doors, not a dispute over a sock puppet. A surge in online Doors activity is much more likely to result from a revival of Oliver Stone's Doors movie on HBO than from the banning of a sock puppet. The sheer number of Doors fans is very relevant to the sock puppet issue because all the edits you are attributing to the puppet are edits related to the Doors. Seth4u2nvcs (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The odds of you pushing the exact same content & source issues on the same articles as a confirmed sock who had the very same agenda is highly suspect. What are the odds that two out of perhaps (by your theory) thousands of people editing these articles want the exact same version with the same source? No one else was introducing this except the banned user(s) and now you. No two people think alike and it's a huge leap of faith to assume two unrelated people with no ulterior motives use the same rationale and editing styles. The same reasoning goes for the Wonderland Avenue (which only 11 people, including the suspected socks, associated IPs, and banned socks have edited since it was created in 2006) and Pamela Courson articles. Pinkadelica  03:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The chances that two or more Doors fans want to restore "the same exact version" are very great when you consider that they didn't have to do any work on it. They all read the same version, and they all liked what they read. If millions of Doors fans can agree that a particular book is worthwhile, then more than two can agree that a particular Internet article is worthwhile. Seth4u2nvcs (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Doors film has been shown more than once since the Wonderland Avenue article was written in January 2006, yet until the sock puppet addition of the paragraphs about Mackenzie Phillips, attempting to discredit the book with entirely synthesized conclusions based on a 30 year old Los Angeles Times article, there had only been six edits to the article since it was written. Can you explain how it is that this vast number of contributors who are interested in the Doors are only interested in restoring versions of articles, based on the exact same sources as written by the proven sock puppets, especially using the same words and arguments in the edit summaries?


 * Perhaps you could explain the extraordinarily unlikely connection between the IP 76.93.88.30, which traceroutes back to a private connection and not a public internet access location, and edits, beginning on this case page, such as when you added this response on this page, using the IP 76.93.88.30, and signed in immediately here to change the signature to yours, and that the same IP 76.93.88.30 made this reversion on the Marilyn Monroe article, explaining in edit summary how Anthony Summers doubts Jack Clemmons, and which restored material first added by the sock puppet master User:Nyannrunning here, and returned and expanded upon here, and again here, with the User:Nyannrunning also using edit summaries detailing Anthony Summers doubts about Jack Clemmons?


 * And perhaps you can explain how it is that you are using the IP 76.83.88.30, which traces back to gig12-vnnyca2-cda6.socal.rr.com, and that one of the confirmed sock puppet IP addresses from the sock puppet case here, IP 76.93.74.76, also traced back to gig12-vnnyca2-cda6.socal.rr.com, if you are not a sock puppet? This is all conclusive proof. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Doors film hasn't been broadcast on a premium cable channel every day since January 2006. It would be silly to track down every broadcast. Suffice it to say that every broadcast can drive Doors fans to their computers and they can become mesmerized by various versions of the Courson article and the Wonderland Avenue article. Then you have all sorts of documentaries on VH1, including Behind the Music.

Did that contributor try to "discredit the book entirely" with the 30-year-old Los Angeles Times article? If you check his/her version of the article, it says Danny Sugerman's memory "may have failed him occasionally." He/she isn't attacking the entire book. I didn't create this version. What I have done is remind you of what it says.

Your traceroutes don't tell you where the computers are located physically. I'm on a college campus. Southern California has many colleges.

Alright, I will explain how "this vast number of contributors who are interested in the Doors are only interested in restoring versions of articles." They are too lazy to create new versions. They're mesmerized by the old ones, and they revive them. Why do they offer the similar reasons for the revivals? Could be any number of reasons for that similarity. Please don't overthink this.

Unless you've checked out all the Doors blogs, you don't know how they could be egging each other on. Howard Stern fans used to conspire to get on the air during as many phone-in radio and TV talk shows as possible so they could yell at the talk host, "Howard Stern rules, you no-good so-and-so!" Stern fans and Doors fans are known for conspiring to convert more people into followers. Robin Quivers and Pamela Courson are offshoots of their men, but their articles still get a lot of edits. Danny Sugerman was hated by many Doors fans. You have opened a can of worms here. Seth4u2nvcs (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've opened a sock puppet case based on the conclusive evidence outlined above. There may be many colleges in southern California, but only one traces back to the gig12-vnnyca2-cda6.socal.rr.com location. I wonder what the chance is that two people on the same campus would prefer the same badly sourced and worded POV versions of an article that only had 6 edits in the first 26 months of its existence. This sock puppet case isn't about content. There is no overthinking here, there is, however, extensive conclusive proof of a sock puppet. None of the rest of the mesmerizing suggestions you've brought up to explain this has refuted the extensive, direct connections from the established sock puppets to your edits. Period. The rest is smokescreen. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No, there is not extensive conclusive proof of a sock puppet. A lot more than two people on a college campus can prefer the same badly sourced version of a rock & roll-related story. At least they are willing to read something to get information about their music, which is a lot more than other college students do with music. Many just listen. Are you being honest with the word "mesmerizing?" Seth4u2nvcs (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Pinkadelica and I have dealt with User:Nyannrunning and all of her proven sock incarnations for nearly a year now. What all of this evidence amounts to is summarized succintly by WP:DUCK. It's much easier to recognize Nyanrunning and the troops than it is to explain how we recognize them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment

I'm just noting here that I've looked at some of the evidence and read some of the discussion. There is too much material for me to digest in a single session. It looks to me that Seth is 69.234.189.198 which in turn is Nyannrunning/Dooyar, but I need more time to confirm this first impression. I wonder if checkuser can help: given the availability of IP addresses, I would think so. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 20:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

A few minutes ago I wrote something on the Discussion page for Shalom Yechiel. You will find that my IP address is mostly consistent. If you've never lived in Los Angeles, you might not realize how many self-employed people switch from computer to computer every day. Despite the traffic, they must get through it to do some work in Orange County, then a few hours later in Los Feliz, then "Mid Wilshire" (a place known only to locals), etc. Seth4u2nvcs (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm convinced Seth4u2nvcs, 69., and 76. IPs are socks. I've blocked Seth indef and the IPs one month. Note, that Nyan/Seth/etc seem to be on a dynamic IP or move around southern California a lot, as all 4 listed IPs trace to that area. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)