Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Viapicante/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
Obvious spam sock, recreating San Diego Film Week, see also interaction here, promoting dubious, non-notable actors for the same firm that viapicante worked for. PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And without delving too much into it (don't want to run afoul of outing) as per the evidence presented to arbcom, there is the same promotion of Butler by both accounts, specifically here and here. PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

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

I live in Southern California and many of my edits are related to the San Diego region. I have edited several pages, and my page creations are reviewed and accepted from drafts by other users. My draft for San Diego Film Week was accepted, edited and speedily deleted very quick, and now it seems as if I am in hot water for having similar page edits from a blocked user because I recreated a previous delete. --Filmforme (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Because you are said user, who was blocked by arbcom. I will also send additional off wiki evidence of which I am sure you are aware there is plenty. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I think this is worth requesting a CU, but I don't think this is clear-cut enough to warrant a block without a confirmed link between the accounts.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 23:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Closing without action. I am inclined to agree with that, without CU confirmation (which is impossible at this time), there isn't much that we can do here. Given that this has been reported to ArbCom with offwiki evidence, they are the ones best situated to dealing with this situation and this should be referred to them.  The SandDoctor  Talk 15:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)