Nyannrunning (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Wildhartlivie ( talk) 03:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
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 Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning added unsigned comments here.
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) reply
Note: Please note that the first sock puppet case Wikipedia: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) reply
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) reply
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.
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) reply
Nyannrunning (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
Wildhartlivie ( talk) 03:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
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 Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning added unsigned comments here.
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) reply
Note: Please note that the first sock puppet case Wikipedia: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) reply
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) reply
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.
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) reply