Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ViperNerd

ViperNerd

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ViperNerd/Archive.

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

Suspected sockpuppets

• 129.252.69.40 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• GarnetAndBlack (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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.
[1]

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. [2]
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:
[3]
These next several diffs show the IP sock and GarnetAndBlack following Hammersoft between several articles reverting similar edits:
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
There is more, but that should suffice. Cheers!!--CobraGeek ^{The Geek} 18:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Comments by other users

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )

Current status – Awaiting initial clerk review.    Requested by CobraGeek ^{The Geek} 18:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

---