Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Evrik

• Evrik (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• CampMinsi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 24.152.227.200 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I have long begun to suspect that it is no coincidence that User:CampMinsi neither has a userpage (yet has been editing since April 2006), nor is a member of the Scouting WikiProject, that the article named Camp Minsi which CampMinsi writes of is a neighboring council of User:Evrik, and CampMinsi evinces the same pedantic manner as Evrik when (he?) doesn't get (his?) way.

examples of policy violations

• CampMinsi using the sockpuppet IP 24.152.227.200 to bolster his position at Talk:Minsi Trails Council, when I get very little resistance, and no argument to speak of, when I put merge tags on sub-council Scout articles as per established policy via Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/RulesStandards. The arguments and pedantry are identical to Evrik. When the camp article was expanded to Council level, CampMinsi took the redirect and recreated the camp page, as well as a secondary camp page, in violation of the pre-agreed standards.

• • link to significant discussion Talk:Minsi Trails Council, as well as edit history of that page, and the history for Camp Minsi

• Evrik has the repeated unWikilike habit of unilaterally removing merge tags, before there is proper discussion about a merge, often within hours; going against established and agreed upon policies of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/RulesStandards; and attempting to discuss tendentious topics offline, outside of the full and open view of other Wikipedians. Evrik refuses to accept that the standards exist, and keeps removing the merge tags, to bolster his personal interpretation of rules and standards-the problem is ongoing, and routinely engages in 3RR violations, until it is pointed out that public opinion is against him. Because of this, Evrik has shown himself to be untrustworthy, pointing to his possible sockpuppetry. CampMinsi has seen that removing tags doesn't work, so endrunning the system and then whining about it might.

• • links to significant discussions Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/RulesStandards#BSA_Scout_camps, Category talk:Boy Scouts of America Local Councils, as well as edit history of those pages

side note

Evrik is running in the in the 2006 Election to the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. If I _do_ find that CampMinsi is indeed a sockpuppet of Evrik, I will immediately call for whatever censure is available to me, either through Wikipedia and/or through WikiProject Scouting, as that is most unScoutlike behavior. If I am correct and he is a sockpuppeteer, if there is a forum in which I can do so, I will register my vote against his election in the strongest possible terms.

If there is any information I can yet provide, or have not provided, please contact me.

Chris 01:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a clerk but I must point out that even if he is sockpuppeting I see no claimed violation of WP:SOCK by Evrik and thus no checkuser case. JoshuaZ 04:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Per JoshuaZ's observation, have Evrik and CampMinsi ever edited the same articles or discussions, perhaps to avoid 3RR or create a false sense of consensus? Thatcher131 11:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in. I don't see where CampMinsi has ever contributed to any discussions outside of Minsi Trails Council - ever. On the other hand, in his last 5,000 edits going back to May, Evrik has added and rearranged some images on Camp Minsi in three edits as well as welcoming CampMinsi (talk · contribs). That's it - a total of five edits that even involve the word "Minsi" out of 5,000 while CampMinsi (talk · contribs) edits nothing but Minsi-related articles. The anon has made a total of one Minsi-related edit and that was to discuss a merge request. In short, I see no reason why Evrik would even need a sock! If he wanted to refute a merge, why wouldn't he just do it himself using his long history here as leverage rather than using two inexperienced socks (who weren't even formally voting BTW)... This seems completely frivolous - to the point where it makes me start eyeing the requestor's history... —Wknight94 (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I invite you to check out my history, you'll find no aspersions to cast, and my request is not in the least frivolous. Chris 14:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note:I cannot find any likely abuse here, and none has yet been presented. Using comparison script, out of the few pages edited in common, I can't find anything there. Voice-of-All 22:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to consider, if you wanted to generate an appearance of consensus, would you not set up topic-specific sockpuppets over a period of time for just such a purpose? Chris 00:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you wouldn't. Due to WP:BEANS and the somewhat off-topic nature of these comments I'm not going into any more detail. JoshuaZ 01:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Declined Mackensen (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the first i heard of this. --evrik 03:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]