Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beach drifter
Beach drifter
- Beach drifter (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
23 May 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
- Beach drifter (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Evidence submitted by PCHS-NJROTC
As much as I wanted to assume good faith, it appears that User:Beach drifter is using her/his IP to do her dirty work. For example, she reverted vandalism at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina as Beach drifter, and in less than a minute, an IP left a rather uncivil comment as an IP. The IP is based in North Carolina according to MaxMind. So is Beach drifter according to an older version of her user page. This IP, along with other IPs in the geographic area, has shown an interest in essays created by me.[1] So has Beach drifter.[2]. Both are usually critical of my work.
If it weren't for the blatant trolling and harassment conducted by the IP, I could turn the other cheek on this. The IP's talk page shows some obvious incivility. The IP engaged in a war with me at Wikipedia:Don't be prejudiced, and then it conveniently agreed with my version of a line when a third party became involved, despite the IP's strong opposition to the version when I had originally written it. The IP reverted a perfectly good revert performed by me twice, merely claiming "calling this a personal attack is very weak" (I reverted the addition of I don't think we should be too worried. What is Andy going to do? Sue Wikipedia? That guy couldn't lawyer his way out of a cereal box. 75.52.111.77 (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC), which is blatantly outside of how we do things here at Wikipedia). The IP wrote "Get off your high horse, we all know you enjoy this crap." on User talk:Keegscee in response to a comment made by me. Worst of all, the IP has engaged in off-wiki stalking, which actually resulted in an independent abuse report to Road Runner (not through WP:ABUSE). Indeed, the IP had been stalking me on MySpace, behavior similar to that of the Cricket Communications troll operating from IPs in the 69.171.160.X range.
On top of all of this, User:Beach drifter denied being the same person as 174.106.0.122 when I asked in an attempt to WP:AGF, to assume that perhaps she was not deliberately editing as an IP to hide that she was responsible for the activities. If she could have owned up and taken responsibility, I would have been a bit more lenient, but I unfortunately can no longer assume good faith in the slightest given these facts. I believe a checkuser would be a good idea to confirm that Beach drifter and the IP is the same person, and to see if she could also be responsible for the Cricket vandalism since both her and the Cricket vandal were stalking me on MySpace. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 19:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Comments by accused parties
Guilty. 174.106.0.122 (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Has there ever been a checkuser case more worthy of being dismissed than this? Keegscee
- I would remove this as blatant trolling, but I'll leave it out of open mindedness since you're not banned (yet), Mr. Keegscee. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 20:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.
- Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
- Current status –
Awaiting initial clerk review. Requested by PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 19:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
