Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ViperNerd

User:ViperNerd

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

edg ☺ ☭ 22:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

SPA contributing only in college football disputes is logging out to evade 3RR in University of South Carolina steroid scandal‎. 65.188.38.31 is a static or semi-static address used by ViperNerd before ViperNerd registered an account. See edit history.
 * Evidence


 * 1st revert: 2008-03-20T21:22:08 – ViperNerd
 * 2nd revert: 2008-03-20T21:30:05 – ViperNerd
 * 3rd revert: 2008-03-20T21:32:12 – ViperNerd
 * 4th revert: 2008-03-20T21:33:32 – 65.188.38.31
 * 5th revert: 2008-03-20T21:45:24 – 65.188.38.31
 * 3RR warning on User talk:ViperNerd: 2008-03-20T21:48:02
 * 65.188.38.31 removes 3RR warning from ViperNerd's talk page.

Article is full-protected (in ViperNerd's preferred form) over this. ViperNerd has a tendentious edit history, and this article only remains stable when other editors accept ViperNerd's deletions. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * and are added by another editor. I do not know what evidence, if any, exists for them being socks. Unfortunately, disputes involving ViperNerd tend to be derailed when other editors involved in these conflicts start "piling on". These are tempests in the college football teapot., an opposing SPA sock, was indefinitely blocked in a recent 3RR report. I'm sure more violators can be found. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Struck portion above will be handled separately. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Edgarde, I have added 69.132.84.127 to the list of suspected IPs being used by this sock. User appears to be circumventing policy (48 hour blick) by using this IP to make edits while blocked.-- Thör hammer 03:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments

I think you're probably right, on balance, but I'm not going to block the IPs because they may not be static, and haven't edited for a few weeks (I appreciate that this report has been here for a while). The main account has been blocked for edit warring, but I don't see much merit in adding a sock block on top of that at this stage. GBT/C 19:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions