Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ViaView/Archive

28 November 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Continuing BLP war against article subject, Viaview is the subjects website and Bullyville is also a website associated with the article subject Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is also an outing issue that we may need to REVDEL found here [] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Via View is company owned by James McGibney and suddenly four accounts appeared using these names to edit the article and whitewash it within minutes of one another. All of those users are tired to one IP and it is safe to say one individual. The person attempting these edits seems very desperate to edit this article and remove information about the article's subject. I believe that this will be a chronic problem and this article needs to be closely watched and guarded as it is likely to repeat. Dead Goldfish (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * These are not really sockpuppets. ViaView was blocked as a username violation and I encouraged them to create a new username.  They then created BullyVille.  I again blocked as a username and told them to try again.  They then created Slingerville, Mark Arsten blocked as a username violation and encouraged them to create a new name.  They finally picked an acceptable username, AceWriterOfFacts.  Edit warring is another matter but these are not sockpuppets.  GB fan 13:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Creating multiple accounts solely in an attempt to evade blocks and to create false edits seems the very definition of a sock / meat puppet situation.  If it walks like a duck.... Dead Goldfish (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read the block messages on User talk:ViaView, User talk:BullyVille and User talk:Slingerville? If not you should goo read them.  If you do not believe my interpretation of those block messages are correct you should ask the admin that placed them what they meant by the notices.  Since I placed two of those blocks and messages, I am correct in what I meant.  I meant for them to create new usernames, they just made some more bad choices.  I read 's message and it tells me he meant the same thing that they were free to create a new account with a new username.  They did and made a better choice.  As far as the edits, I do not see the edits they made as vandalism, but they definitaley have been edit warring, just like you were.  GB fan 21:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * GB fan is exactly right, this is a common situation of a new editor not understanding username policy, a situation which wouldn't occur if my User:Sphilbrick/User_naming_convention_proposal were in place.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I concur with — this was a case of username policy violation which required several iterations before being resolved.  Any edit warring needs to be handled somewhere other than SPI.  Closing.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)