Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monkey225/Archive

Report date March 17 2009, 23:17 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets



For some unknown reason Monkey225 has been deadset on retaining some links on A Child Called "It" article. One is just a personal blog page, and the other is a spam site with copyright-violation content that was discussed recently at the WikiProject SPAM page. Monkey225 put the links back, ignoring three different editors telling him they shouldn't be there, then IP address 72.187.99.214 showed up to not only put the links back but revert the whole page to an old version without edits. Completely new user PrettyMexican (with no other edit history whatsoever) just showed up to put the links back in yet again, making a claim that those links have been there for months and thus need to be there. Edit warring is obvious, but the accounts being used look very suspiciously like sockpuppeting. DreamGuy (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by DreamGuy (talk)
 * As an additional comment, User:PrettyMexican has since been engaged in a campaign of harassment, calling me a troll on my talk page and insinuating that I must be a pedophile on his/her talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: A day and a half or so after this was filed, Monkey225 reversed his position on the point he was edit warring over to removing the links instead of keeping them, and then the PrettyMexican account and the IP account stopped reverting as well and have seemingly disappeared. Both accounts seem to have only been present while the conflict was going on and then never returned (though it was recent so they could theoretically return at some future point). At this time there is no behavior to investigate, but at the time it appeared to be a pretty clear cut case to be investigated. It may be academic, or not, up to you, but the break down on the accounts being used together to make the same edits can be seen on the edit history of A Child Called "It" up until Monkey225 leaves an edit comment about looking into it and agreeing the links do not belong 17:52, March 17, 2009. All other edits were to restore links, either specifically on the links or as a whole revert of the article to an old version. I am a bit perplexed by the statement that all three accounts were inserting and removing links. Pretty Mexican and the anon IP never removed the main spam links, and Monkey225 only did at the end, when suddenly the edit warring of the other accounts ceased. DreamGuy (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Updated update:: got a request on my talk page to come here, and see a message below asking for more info, but nothing about what new info is required. If it's the old info that was requested, what part is missing that wasn't covered by the above update? DreamGuy (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

as things stand, there simply isn't sufficient evidence to proceed. If this flairs up again, feel free to report again. Mayalld (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * DreamGuy I see all three accounts inserting AND removing links. Can you break out specifically where they are used together to make the same edits?   MBisanz  talk 06:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * reporter asked to respond. Mayalld (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions