Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ViperNerd/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


ViperNerd

ViperNerd (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date July 18 2009, 16:48 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Wolfkeeper

This edit: [1] is very suspicious, as User:ViperNerd did a similar edit[2] but he is currently suspended for edit warring on this same article.[3] ViperNerd previously ran sockpuppets in similar circumstances e.g. User:69.132.84.127. Both IPs geolocate to North Carolina. It seems very unlikely that somebody uninvolved that is in that relatively small region of America would be interested in undoing this particular edit. It seems to me that he's just continuing to edit war even while blocked.

Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.

 Clerk declined - WP:DUCK. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Blocked for 72 hours for block evasion. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date August 3 2009, 18:27 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets

Five reverts on Unmanned aerial vehicle well within 24 hours, using User:ViperNerd and the IP address.

Evidence submitted by Wolfkeeper

User ViperNerd has been previously caught using IP sockpuppets several times before in 3RR situations or when blocked. His use here to try to avoid the letter of 3RR is entirely consistent with his previous usage- WP:DUCK. He was very recently blocked for a whole week for edit warring.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

The accusing editor is Wikistalking me following recent confrontation we had in the Tu-160 article. This editor was also very recently blocked for edit warring (his 5th block for 3RR) in that article and proceeded to later issue the threat "to do everything in my power to get you permanently excluded" from that article, while violating WP:NPA numerous times.[9] Given this statement, and the fact that this editor was clearly observing my edits on Unmanned aerial vehicle,[10][11] it would not surprise me if this vindictive user employed the use of an anonymous IP in order to make good on his threats by creating the appearance that I was edit warring via sockpuppet. Indeed, it's quite convenient that this investigation was filed so quickly after the article had to be protected by someone who clearly has an axe to grind against me. ViperNerd (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the reporting editor in this case has picked up his SIXTH block today, this time for violation of WP:NPA. I can't say that I'm all that surprised. ViperNerd (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

The IP is an open proxy, meaning, a checkuser here would be pointless. If it is ViperNerd, a checkuser wouldn't show anything. --B (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if it's Wolfkeeper, I guess it also wouldn't show anything? ViperNerd (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly unlikely that it would show anything regardless of who it is. --B (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • Note that the IP has been blocked for a year as an open proxy. NW (Talk) 03:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  •  Likely ViperNerd = 189.87.170.2. Any decisions re blocking are left to others. Risker (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked ViperNerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely. I was initially going to give him a month for edit-warring, with a warning that the next block would be infinite. Then I realized he had engaged in block evasion on a prior occasion. Given this history, and his many blocks for edit-warring in the past, I am certain that the IP was him, even if technical evidence was not able to give a absolutely positive match. J.delanoygabsadds 04:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Risker's findings. -- Luk talk 06:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


ViperNerd

ViperNerd (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date August 6 2009, 12:43 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Triplestop x3

Given this user's edits, I find it very difficult to believe this account is legitimate. This user's sole edits are pushing POV at subjects related to communism. The IP listed is an obvious sock of this user used for edit warring and vote stacking, and its edits suggest a longer pattern of abuse [12]. <--- That edit connects the user with the account listed. This account also popped up around the time ViperNerd was blocked indefinitely. Triplestop x3 12:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I have nothing to do with the above users. The sockpupet tag is a malacious attempt. If you have any doubt, use checkuser. Joklolk (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

The Joklolk account was created only a few days ago, and it immediately started creating controversial articles and categories and possessed very good knowledge of Wikipedia editing. Therefore, it is doubtful this is his first account (I wish Joklolk himself would clarify about this.) However, I'm a bit sceptical if there is a connection to ViperNerd. Obviously, ViperNerd (through an IP; connection is established here by an admin) voted the same way as Joklolk in the deletion discussion of the article created by Joklolk. The two have edited same articles recently on a few occasions, for example [13][14] and [15][16], but in general, taking a look at his contributions, it seems that User:ViperNerd has showed little interest in similar subjects as Joklolk, such as communism, genocide, etc. Offliner (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Triplestop x3 12:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed MuZemike 15:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date August 23 2009, 12:21 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by CobraGeek Change we can believe in!

This is an additional sock of User:ViperNerd, who is making use of any IP that he can get his hands on to revert edits to articles he has long-running disputes over. Checkuser is not needed, behavioral evidence is pretty clear on this case. CobraGeek Change we can believe in! 12:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
  • IP blocked for a year as a blocked proxy. NW (Talk) 16:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date August 22 2009, 16:52 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by CobraGeek

Banned user ViperNerd appears to be evading an indefinite block using the two IPs indicated above. Recent edits listed by diffs below from articles that user has had long-running dispute and edit-warring involving multiple blocks of his account.

First edit is of his talk page by one of the IPs to place his inflammatory departure message back on his talk page, despite reversion by several admins:
[17]

Next several diffs are from articles (including these specific edits) that ViperNerd has had long-running disputes over:
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]

I have placed the suspected sockpuppet template on the user page for both of these IPs.--CobraGeek Change we can believe in! 16:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an additional IP that ViperNerd is using this morning to revert edits.--CobraGeek Change we can believe in! 12:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence submitted by CobraGeek Change we can believe in!

User ViperNerd is using IP 206.230.106.209 to continue his sock attacks on articles that he has long-running edit disputes over. No checkuser is needed, behavioral evidence is pretty clear. I have added this IP to the current sockpuppet investigation. CobraGeek Change we can believe in! 12:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by CobraGeek Change we can believe in! 16:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk declined – behavioral evidence clearly indicates that the above-listed IPs are ViperNerd. No CU necessary. I have also added additional IPs above that have kept adding the same trollish drabble at User talk:ViperNerd. I think page protection may help here. MuZemike 17:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

Some blocked open proxies. No action required. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


ViperNerd

ViperNerd (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date August 23 2009, 18:47 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by CobraGeek The Geek

This is another IP sock of user ViperNerd continuing his edit-warring and incivility. This IP needs to be blocked. No check-user evidence needed. [23] CobraGeek The Geek 18:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

 Clerk note: IP already blocked by User:J.delanoy as an obvious sock. MuZemike 19:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


ViperNerd

ViperNerd (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date August 23 2009, 18:47 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by CobraGeek The Geek

This is another IP sock of user ViperNerd continuing his edit-warring and incivility. This IP needs to be blocked. No check-user evidence needed. [24] CobraGeek The Geek 18:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

Funny that a known user of sockpuppets on these same articles is so concerned with other editors imitating his actions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/CobraGeek

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
  • IP blocked. NW (Talk) 23:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date August 24 2009, 01:02 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by CobraGeek The Geek

This IP is another sock of User:ViperNerd. IP has already been blocked, and ViperNerd is also already blocked indefinitely. Check user evidence not necessary. CobraGeek The Geek 01:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • If it is already blocked, there is no need to submit this case... NW (Talk) 01:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date August 25 2009, 16:53 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by CobraGeek The Geek

Another sockpuppet attack by User:ViperNerd performing userspace vandalism on User:CobraGeek. Behavioral evidence should be adequate, no checkuser is requested. CobraGeek The Geek 16:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[25]

These are the contribs, followed by the individual edits of the second IP:
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

Open proxies blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the future, you can report blocked proxies to WP:AIV. It's more efficient and much quicker than SPI. NW (Talk) 21:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date August 25 2009, 23:26 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by CobraGeek The Geek

This is a new sock account being used by User:ViperNerd to bypass semi-protection on my userspace: [30]
Behavioral evidence is adequate and, even though I'm not asking for it, checkuser might be useful. CobraGeek The Geek 23:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

The only sockpuppeteer here is you. It has been proven. Also templating other user pages as retaliation for your past misdeeds is not cool. Couldn't help but notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/CobraGeekResurgens (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: – already blocked. MuZemike 23:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date August 26 2009, 00:45 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by CobraGeek The Geek

Another sock attack by banned User:ViperNerd. CobraGeek The Geek 00:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[31]
[32]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
  • Already blocked; AIV in the future please. NW (Talk) 00:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date September 1 2009, 12:53 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by CobraGeek The Geek

This is another IP sock account and another newly created account of indefinitely blocked User:ViperNerd returning to his previously disputed edits on articles that have recently been unprotected. Recent behavioral evidence is adequate, no checkuser is needed. CobraGeek The Geek 12:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC):[reply]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Hello. I'm here because of a message I got on my user page today. I'm a student at the University of South Carolina and recently registered on Wikipedia to help take care of the article on our upcoming football season which starts on Thursday, and also to correct mistakes and remove vandalism on USC articles where I find them. I'm not involved in any of the 5 changes listed above, and don't know how or why I'm being involved in this. I'm removing the messages on my user pages and would appreciate being left out of this dispute. Thanks.GarnetAndBlack (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions

 Clerk note: IP blocked for one week by User:NuclearWarfare. No action taken on the registered account. The registered account seems to be an innocent bystander in this harassment-fest against CobraGeek orchestrated by the sockmaster. MuZemike 22:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date September 3 2009, 18:18 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by CobraGeek The Geek

More continuing vandalism by an anonymous sock of blocked User:ViperNerd. IP needs a long term block. No checkuser needed. Cheers. CobraGeek The Geek 18:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
  • If my scan was accurate, it seems to be an open proxy. Blocked for a year. (In the future, WP:AIV works better). NW (Talk) 20:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date September 11 2009, 12:17 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by CobraGeek The Geek

This is another IP sock of indefinitely blocked User:ViperNerd committing vandalism and harrassment. IP sock was blocked for 48 hours, but I don't think the admin was aware that this is another sock of this user. Block needs to be extended to indefinite. No checkuser is required. CobraGeek The Geek 12:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence submitted by CobraGeek The Geek

This User:CockNFire is the next in the line of socks created by indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer ViperNerd. This newly created account (SPA) with no edit history immediately followed me to Donald Igwebuike (which hasn't been edited since February) and rolled back an edit made to address a WP:BLP concern. This behavioral evidence is strong, but I will request checkuser if there is doubt. Here are the user diffs, beginning with the mentioned edit, then returning to ViperNerd's old warring ground. [38]
[39]
[40]. CobraGeek The Geek 11:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
I don't believe IP addresses normally get indef blocks. WuhWuzDat 12:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed they do not. This IP looks like it has been an open proxy recently, though possibly not now. I'll check again in the near future, but something like a month block may be appropriate if it proves to be still open. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by CobraGeek The Geek 11:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk declined per zzuuzz and CobraGeek. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

IPs don't get blocked indefinitely because they are used for sockpuppetry. Not much to do here at this time.. move to close. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date September 14 2009, 13:59 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by CobraGeek The Geek

Another IP sock of indefinitely blocked User:ViperNerd continuing reverts on Donald Igwebuike and Clemson Tigers football. CobraGeek The Geek 13:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I have no idea what this abusive person is talking about. 129.252.69.40 (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
  • Comment - looks like a WP:DUCK case to me, but (and correct me if I'm reading the WHOIS wrong), the suspected IP appears to be a shared IP, registered to the University of South Carolina. It could be a coincidence, but I doubt some random person would go after the one who brought down the other ViperNerd socks.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 22:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    here's that WHOIS data.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 22:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, no correcting needed, it is very easy to figure out when an anon IP immediately goes on the attack, especially on articles that have been stable for seven months. Thanks for the consensus opinion. Cheers!--CobraGeek The Geek 00:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
  • information Note: Blocked for a week. NW (Talk) 19:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date September 18 2009, 22:43 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by CobraGeek The Geek

This IP sock of indefinitely blocked User:ViperNerd returned today following expiration of a one week block and is back at it reverting edits in his old warring grounds. Need to have an extended block - is three months too long? IP sock has also removed the sock tag from his user page. No checkuser is necessary. CobraGeek The Geek 22:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Reblocked for one month. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Report date October 2 2009, 18:06 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by CobraGeek The Geek

WP:Duck strongly suggests that indefinitely blocked User:ViperNerd is once again using IP 129.252.69.40 for block evasion, harassment, and disruption. We really need a longer block on this IP, if possible. The one week blocks aren't getting it done.
[41]

The IP is definitely ViperNerd, and this second sock GarnetAndBlack looks like a stealth reincarnation based on behavior, editing/reverting hand-in-hand with the IP sock, but being careful not to display the characteristic incivility and harassment:
This edit is by the second sock (which I found suspicious in this SPI - claiming to be an uninterested student here to protect USC articles from vandalism.) I am requesting checkuser for this account, and strongly believe this account to be one of the multiple sock accounts used recently by ViperNerd. [42]
This history listing shows the tendency of User:GarnetAndBlack to edit files that ViperNerd recently added to Wikipedia (and which hasn't been edited by any other users since last November, but twice very recently by ViperNerd and GarnetAndBlack:
[43]
These next several diffs show the IP sock and GarnetAndBlack following Hammersoft between several articles reverting similar edits:
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
There is more, but that should suffice. Cheers!!--CobraGeek The Geek 18:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Seriously? This is the second time I've received one of these messages on my page. As with the first one, I really don't know what more I can say other than I have no involvement with these other users who are apparently misbehaving. I fixed what looked to me like vandalism to a few USC articles last night and copypasted a "fairuse" notice to an image of the USC logo that was being removed from these articles (I didn't even realize the 1969 and 1980 football articles existed before I looked at the history of the person who was removing the logo). I do have one question though. Will I be receiving one of these messages every time someone acts up in a USC article that I have worked on? I only ask because it seems a bit ridiculous. There are around 30,000 people at USC, so if some of them are using campus computers to do things they shouldn't be doing (as seems to be the case here), will every person who works on USC articles be accused of misdeeds at one point or another? Also, I do not access Wikipedia from campus, I'm much too busy with classes and labs to have the time. I do all my Wikipedia work from home. If anyone has any further questions, don't hesitate to ask, but I'm removing the notice from my page (again) as I have nothing to do with all this silliness. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by CobraGeek The Geek 18:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • GarnetAndBlack is Red X Unrelated. 129.252.69.40 is ViperNerd/CockNFire. Brandon (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  • information Administrator note This particular IP has been used before, so I blocked it for a month. NW (Talk)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date October 7 2009, 11:07 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by CobraGeek The Geek

Another IP sock of ViperNerd repeating his standard reverts/disruptive edits. This may be an open proxy.
Edit history: [51]
CobraGeek The Geek 11:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence submitted by CobraGeek The Geek

Another IP sock if indefinitely blocked user ViperNerd.
[52]
[53]
CobraGeek The Geek 18:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

IP already blocked. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before closing, please have a look at the second IP, which I just added. Thanks! --CobraGeek The Geek 18:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Duck test applies here. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 20:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Report date October 19 2009
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Jober14, ViperNerd repeating his standard reverts/disruptive edits. This may be an open proxy.

Edit history: [54] - October 19, 2009


Evidence submitted by CobraGeek The Geek

indefinitely-blocked user ViperNerd has again returned with another IP-sock to perform his customary reverts and disruption. WP:Duck should be adequate, no checkuser is necessary. CobraGeek The Geek 20:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit history


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

information Administrator note Blocked 24h. MuZemike 01:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date October 23 2009
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Jober14, ViperNerd repeating his standard reverts/disruptive edits. This may be an open proxy. This IP has been blocked three times previously for the exact same things.

Edit history: [55] - October 23, 2009


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
  • Blocked for two months and reverted. NW (Talk) 19:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date October 27 2009, 12:28 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by CobraGeek The Geek

This is an obvious return of indefinitely blocked User:ViperNerd. Two edits following, one just made by the listed IP, the other by an already blocked IP sock of ViperNerd:
[56]
[57] (by User:129.252.69.40).

WP:Duck should be adequate. I have reported this IP as a potential open proxy. CobraGeek The Geek 12:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

just because someone makes an edit you don't like that happens to agree with a blocked user, doesn't automatically mean that they are a sock. i've checked the reporting user's history, and this ongoing crusade is pretty sad stuff. i hope everyone who views this report realizes that this user has done nothing but build a shrine[58] to a disruptive user. my advice to the wikipedia tattletale? grow up and do something constructive with your time here. 61.186.94.146 (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
  • Blocked for quite a while. NW (Talk) 22:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date November 2, 2009
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by User:Jober14 This is an obvious return of indefinitely blocked User:ViperNerd.


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

information Administrator note Blocked. MuZemike 18:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date November 6, 2009
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by User:Jober14 This is an obvious return of indefinitely blocked User:ViperNerd.


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Is there any way we can lock these pages from being edited by non-registered users? Jober14 (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way you can learn some basic reading comprehension? This section is for comments from OTHER users, genius. I know you went to Clemson, but I assumed you could at least read.
LOL Jober14 (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know it's funny...but also a little sad at the same time.
LOL Jober14 (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
  • information Administrator note IP blocked for 6 months. NW (Talk) 19:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date November 22 2009, 13:44 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by CobraGeek The Geek

Obvious harrassing behavior by User:ViperNerd. This diff should be self-explanatory: [[59]]. CobraGeek The Geek 13:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date January 3 2010, 16:49 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by CobraGeek The Geek

Another return of indefinitely-blocked User:ViperNerd for a round of harassing vandalism:
[60] CobraGeek The Geek 16:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions0
  • information Administrator note Blocked two weeks. NW (Talk) 18:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.


20 April 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

ViperNerd blocked for using multiple accounts on 4 August 2009. GarnetAndBlack account created 31 August 2009. ViperNerd had ownership issues with just about anything to do with south Carolina. As does GarnetAndBlack. Editor Interaction Analyzer shows G&B taking up right were ViperNerd left off[61] Intersect Contribs shows a great deal of overlap of SC articles[62] G&B edit summary"Retaliatory warning removed" [63] ViperNerd edit summary [64]"Threat of retaliatory editing noted" G&B restores the official logo to this article[65] It was uploaded by ViperNerd and was also editwarred in by VP's IP socks[66] Use of quotation marks in edit summarys G&B[67][68][69] VP same style[70][71][72][73] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The more I look into this the weirder it becomes. This also seems a little suspicious. G&B is involved with an IP[74] and reverts it over the logo. The IP reverts T&G again[75] which in turn is reverted by this IP[76] Perhaps you recognize it? As you blocked it as an IP of ViperNerd[77] Darkness Shines (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
My defense against this false accusation is the same as it was here[78] and here[79]. I started editing Wikipedia articles dealing with USC when I started school there back in Fall 2009, and that's used against me because one idiot got themselves banned almost a month before I began my editing career? All the "evidence" presented above is circumstantial (at best), and I'd appreciate not being compared with someone who was apparently only here to disrupt the project (I'm dealing with one person like that right now [80], and it's certainly not an enjoyable experience). Oh no, I used quotation marks around a word...looks like I've slipped up again. Seriously? I'm being asked to defend myself based on the punctuation and vocabulary I use? Is "retaliatory" really that much of an SAT word that only one person could ever use it on Wikipedia? Unreal. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Because MuZemike, the aggravated editwarring and abusive behavior has continued. I just had my actual IP published here and got harrassed, which was pretty distressing, all over one of this sockmaster's petty editwars. User:GarnetAndBlack/User:129.252.69.40 / User:ViperNerd are all obviously the same user. 129.252.69.40 is one of the main "anonymous socks" and IPs that both username accounts have in common. GarnetAndBlack / 129.252.69.40 have continued to editwar and revert in tandum the same exact content / sections after the sockmaster's ViperNerd account got blocked. Here are just a few examples:

  • 1st diff: [81] as GarnetAndBlack
  • 2nd diff: [82] as GarnetAndBlack
  • 3rd diff: [83] as GarnetAndBlack
  • 4th diff: [84] as GarnetAndBlack
  • 5th diff: [85] as GarnetAndBlack
  • 6th diff: [86] as GarnetAndBlack
  • 7th diff: [87] as 129.252.69.40
  • 8th diff: [88] as 129.252.69.40
  • 9th diff: [89] as 129.252.69.40
  • 10th diff: [90] as 129.252.69.41
  • 12th diff: [91] as 129.252.69.41
  • 13th diff: [92] as ViperNerd
  • 14th diff: [93] as ViperNerd
  • 15th diff: [94] as ViperNerd
  • 16th diff: [95] as ViperNerd

Pretty definitive. Sock 129.252.69.40 finally got blocked again for edit warring by an administrator on February 17, 2012. But the Sockmaster's named account has kept right on reverting and editwarring, and still over the same content on the same articles. I wonder how many editors (and newcomers) have had to put up with his behavior on all of those pages combined by now. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - no comment on the merit of the case from Darkness Shines, however, the diffs provided by ThomasC.Wolfe are not helping the cause - they don't even look too much alike. In fact, this seems to be a case of retalation by TCW for his own sockpuppet investigation, which frankly shows much better coinciding of diffs than these. I suggest ThomasC.Wolfe stay out of this discussion and avoid any further WP:BOOMERANG. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In AGF, how about comments being directed toward the statistical data provided by Darkness Shines; that he spent his personal time researching and providing? Given Garnet / 129.252.69.40 editwarring / sock history (the partial focus here), I could spend more time providing different diffs if you (or another admin) will take a look at them (there has been enough behavioral documentation elsewhere). Where would you like for me to provide them? And I only saw one diff on that other unmerited report (you mentioned here?) where I stepped in "to settle" an editwar continued by Garnet's sock 120.252.69.40 on January 11; I personally researched it & documented my research for other editors here [96], viewable by "anyone." It's since been reverted back to sock 129.252.69.40 exact revert again by the username account. Same pattern. And note: I have had respect for you as an admin-- I have also tried talking to you before on your own talk page; WP:HOUND (by the garnet sock there as well). Where would you prefer?
Other than edit warring using his own string of IP socks[97], retaliatory reporting is all ThomasC.Wolfe seems to be here for[98][99][100], this user's contributions page is an embarrassment to the project. Also, given what has recently happened[101][102] to the editor that filed this baseless SPI, I'd respectfully request that this report be closed ASAP. Thanks. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ViperNerd/Archive#Report date September 1 2009, 12:53 (UTC) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ViperNerd/Archive#Report date October 2 2009, 18:06 (UTC), how is this current case going to possibly yield any different results (knowing that I made the call 3 years ago that GarnetAndBlack was not a sock). --MuZemike 20:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ViperNerd/Archive&oldid=1140763635"