Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beach drifter/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Beach drifter


Beach drifter

23 May 2010
edit
Suspected sockpuppets
edit


Evidence submitted by PCHS-NJROTC
edit

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
edit

Guilty. 174.106.0.122 (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above. Beach drifter (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is all extremely stale.[citation needed] Beach drifter (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that I didn't actually deny anything. Beach drifter (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great to know what specific part of wp:SOCK I am being accused of violating. I also don't see a code letter that applies to this situation. Beach drifter (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

I doubt that User talk:69.171.160.110 is Beach drifter because the Ip's edits coincide with each other (referring to 174.106.0.122, from what I understand Beach drifter has admited using). Ip is also based in San Diego, So i think that is a different troll. But I could be wrong. Also,I am going to have to agree with Beach drifter that he did not deny anything, but it seems he tried not to give a straight answer though.wiooiw (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cricket IP is a mobile IP, which probably explains the uncertain Geolocation. My biggest reason for suspecting relation is due to off-wiki activities, but only a checkuser could say for sure. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


In response to BD, you are in violation of the section dealing with good hand/bad hand accounts. I encourage everyone to read this which BD moved from here to my talk page, and of course, to get to the bottom of this so we can continue on building an encyclopedia. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 23:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the sock policy, "bad hand" is considered disruptive. While I admit that my edits as an IP were somewhat pointy, they at no time even slightly disrupted the project. Beach drifter (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Random girls can add random hearts to articles and likewise not be overly disruptive, (i.e., Wikipedia moves on) yet that kind of behavior is not tolerated. We have rules like WP:CIVIL that all users are required to obey. But rather than get into some kind of WP:WikiWar here, why not just let the clerks look at the facts and act as they feel fit?And Keegscee is evading a block, so, according to ArbCom, he can be treated as defacto banned. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 23:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing with you is not uncivil. Yelling at you and calling you names would be uncivil. So far I've only seen the "High horse" comment, which I don't find at all uncivil, and which I also believe you are proving correct right now. Beach drifter (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that Beach drifter has confessed to being a troll by saying But some of us just can't help but to push your buttons. on his userpage. If removes this, I guess I'll have to take it to AN/I, and sorry about the big letters, had to make it stand out. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 23:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, I meant that you keep calling me a troll. If you think one silly statement is worth an ANI thread be my guest. Beach drifter (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
edit
Checkuser request – code letter: B (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism )
Current status –   Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 19:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

  Clerk declined Contributions from IPs are quite old. In addition to that, the user has admitted to being the IPs in question, so there is no need for a CU. I don't really see any violation of WP:SOCK here so if there is an ongoing problem with this user, please take it to WP:ANI. I'm closing this case before it gets further out of hand breaching WP:CIVIL. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 13:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Beach_drifter/Archive&oldid=1142802642"