If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
((Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/South Philly))
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

South Philly

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 04:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

After his recent appearance in a few RfAs, I decided to look into what User:Evrik has been up to lately. In the past, he engaged in revert-warring as a team with User:South Philly, who has now been indef-blocked for sockpuppetry and revert-warring with sockpuppets. At the time of South Philly and Evrik’s tag-teaming on the WikiProject Awards battle, I noted that South Philly had some characteristics of a sock puppet: showing up usually to engage in content disputes and revert wars, as sort of a “bad hand” account. As a new user he promptly participated in revert-warring, ArbComm, AfDs and RfCs, always there to agree with or defend Evrik. Now that the South Philly account has been indef-blocked, I would like to make sure of the Evrik connection before the data on South Philly goes stale. If Evrik and South Philly are the same user, the Evrik account is being used to evade an indef-block.

It was suggested in an Arbcom case that South Philly might be Evrik's sockpuppet,[1] at the time, it doesn't appear to have been checkusered. However, there is a longer record to check now. I have gone through SP's entire edit history, comparing edit times and logs with Evrik's. There is zero overlap in editing times with Evrik.

There is, however, a significant amount of overlap in their interests and pages editeded. Here are a few key examples of team reverts and vote-stacking.

1. The Boothy443 edit war, 3RR violations

Evrik reverts Boothy443 [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. South Philly appears, and as his fourth edit on Wikipedia, takes over the reverting from Evrik: [7]. Later Evrik returns to pick up war again [8]. Tag-teams with South Philly [9]. IP 172.139.11.155 continues reverting Boothy443 [10]. Then again Evrik [11], [12], [13],[14], and again South Philly picks up the ball [15], [16], and back to Evrik [17]

Some of this revert warring was slow, so technically not 3RR, but it was disruptive. If you look at his block logs, Evrik was blocked for this, as well as other instances of 3RR. I believe the South Philly account was used to evade this block (12:29, 19 February 2006 HappyCamper (Talk | contribs) blocked "Evrik (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 8 hours ‎ (A reciprocal block for month long edit warring with User:Boothy443)), as the South Philly account edits during this time, including posting on Evrik's talk page commending him for fighting Boothy443: [18].

2. WikiProject Awards, vote-stacking and revert-warring

South Philly appoints Evrik "acting" coordinator of WikiProject awards, against consensus: [19] Evrik then appoints self coordinator, again against consensus: [20]

Gradually, other editors join the project and question this arrangement: [21], [22] Evrik is removed as coordinater, per consensus on talk page. A protracted edit-war ensues, with a number of different editors removing the text that says Evrik is coordinator, with Evrik and South Philly taking turns reverting. South Philly shows up to reinstate Evrik, against consensus: [23] After he is again removed by another editor, Evrik performs same revert: [24] Evrik did not discuss this revert on the talk page first, despite edit summary claiming so. Evrik is then removed by another participant, and again re-appoints self: [25] And again: [26] Now South Philly takes up the reverting: [27], [28] And then Evrik: [29]. Eleven minutes later, South Philly: [30], [31]. (This is one of the shorter switchover times between the accounts. Usually there's a break between twenty minutes to two hours for the switchover. Only rarely do we see switchover times as close as seven minutes.)

Removed after community intervention, Evrik leaves the project: [32] South Philly promptly nominates project for MfD: [33] (consensus: WP:POINT nomination, closed as keep)

Three months later, project now functioning fine as a normal Wikipedia collective, without Evrik. South Philly returns to again nominate for MFD: [34]. (Again, consensus to keep project.)

While not evidence in itself, if the evidence leans in favor of sockpuppetry, the Barnstars proposals page contains many examples of vote-stacking. Here’s a few examples: (a series of edits by South Philly, after a series of edits by Evrik): [35]

3. Vote stacking in an AfD
[36] both accounts vote "keep."
4. Both accounts participate and back each other up in a mediation
[37] and an ArbComm case: [38].
5. South Philly writes an "outside view" in a RfC on Evrik in an RfC
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Evrik#Outside view by South Philly Then later comes off wiki-break to try to AfD the RfC: [39] (Consensus keep - we don't MfD good faith RfCs).

Sorry this has gotten a little long. I'm uncertain how much info is "enough" to get a checkuser so I err a bit on the overkill side. Pigman☿ 04:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk assistance requested: - can someone possibly format this up a little, please? It's not been filed properly as a case. Thanks! - Alison ❤ 05:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: Formated. WjBscribe 15:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Red X Unrelated - Thanks, wjb. Checkuser results suggest these users are obviously unrelated, but there do appear to be strong meatpuppetry concerns - Alison ❤ 17:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: I recuse myself from closing actions on this case as I have had extensive contact with Evrik at the ScoutingWikiProject. I've contacted WJBscribe and asked him to close this case. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)...update, WJBscribe recuses himself too. Ask another RFCU clerk to pls handle closing the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has spilled over to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Evrik (2nd). Pigman's claims are retaliation, and an abuse of the system. Recently Pigman said, "After his recent appearance in a few RfAs, I decided to look into what User:Evrik has been up to lately." [40] Well, what he is referring to is my "oppose" vote in Kathryn NicDhàna's RfA. Pigman and Kathryn NicDhàna have worked together closely in the past. This is retaliation for that vote. My simple vote was responded to by pigman with this screed.

While I have, to my knowledge,ever worked with Alison before, she also supported Kathryn NicDhàna's RfA.

Please take this all into consideration. --evrik (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Philly

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 05:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/South Philly.

Users User:South Philly and User:Student erotica are tag team edit warring in Erotica.[41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] Both make similar accusations in edit summaries, including presumptive User talk accusations of edit warring before any has occurred.[48] [49] [50]

User:Student erotica has been blocked for using User:151.201.155.166 as a sockpuppet (no checkuser performed) in an edit war to restore information added by South Philly. User:151.197.111.178 was previously blocked for 3RR in the same article.

All these socks are new SPA's. However, all use Wikipedia jargon in summaries, suggesting experience beyond their edit counts. 151.197.111.178 makes a manipulative RFPP.[51] Student erotica begins adding WikiProject tags to articles minutes after being called an SPA in the SP report.[52] [53] / edg ☺ ★ 05:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no Unnecessary: the accounts have been blocked already on behavior. Dmcdevit·t 01:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.


More