Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jlambert

[edit] Jlambert

New RFCU on Jlambert.

User:Mackensen did not offer any explanation. No decisions were made nor evidence presented. It seems that nothing was done. Doctor Octagon 15:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ehheh (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Jlambert (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Clerk note: Old request I noticed while sifting though the archives. Considering the requestor was indefblocked a day after this or so, their talk page protected, and they didn't provide any evidence, I'd imagine this'd be {{Thrown out}}, but listed mechanically. Kevin_b_er 23:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Declined Dmcdevit·t 08:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jlambert

• Jlambert (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Ehheh (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Ronz (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Nandesuka (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Sockpuppet notice on User:Nandesuka

Why did you place a sockpuppet tag on User:Nandesuka's user page. Do you have any evidence to back up this allegation? Gwernol 18:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And another on User:Ronz's user page. Do you have any evidence to back this up? Gwernol 18:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The evidence was destroyed when Nandesuka opted to post RfD on the NiMUD article, while a dispute involving notability had arose regarding one of the people mentioned in NiMUD and online creation. I believe that at least two of the people who requested Delete were sock-puppets or somehow related to Nandesuka or two each other, but it seems like they are functioning as a single group on this initiative, and it is yet unclear if User:Atari2600tim should be listed here or not yet. The users Ronz, Ehheh and JLambert all have similar styles and exactly the same opinion, and Nandesuka sided with them several times, as well as citing sockpuppetry as the reason for the original article being no consensus for deletion. According to Nandesuka, the original article was not deleted due to sockpuppetry, but I am fairly certain, by examination of behavior and contributions, that users Ehheh and Jlambert have functioned in concert with Nandesuka, and that Nandesuka may be the administrator "account" if you will of Jlambert. I have placed a request for checkuser on Nandesuka, Ehheh, Jlambert and Ronz, but they keep removing their sockpuppet tags. Go figure. In a very unprofessional unadministrative-like and vindictive non-conflict-resolving manner, Nandesuka informed me of block warnings after initiating blocks, addressed me as "Herb", even though I'm clearly Doctor Octagon, failed to listen to any claims to the contrary of the initial claim made and did not attempt to resolve the conflict, instead opting to immediately silence me with a block before permitting me to respond, citing incivility, even though no direct personal attack was made. The users who responded to the claim (rather suddenly) seemed to be the same users who were involved in articles regarding the aforementioned "Herb" and since Wikipedia or at least admin Nandesuka offered very little advice on how to avoid being 'gang snuffed' by a bunch of seemingly similar users (two of which, Ronz and Ehheh, have very little usage history and underdeveloped user identities). A check-IP may be necessary. --- Doctor Octagon 03:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have almost 500 edits and my account is over a year old. Doctor Octagon simply spammed a page I monitor and edit, which led me to investigate why. It looks like many others have made similar investigations for the same reason. --Ronz 15:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I nominated NiMUD for AfD when following up a trail mentioned on WP:AN/I, when I looked at the previous nomination and noted that sockpuppetting by someone in favor of keeping it was rampant. The only keep vote on this most recent AfD other than one from Doctor Octagon was from anonymous IP 128.2.13.165, which resolves to unix35.andrew.cmu.edu. Information from that machine indicates that the main subject of this vanity article, Herb Gilliland — heg@andrew.cmu.edu — was one of the logged in users at the time this edit was made. I consider this to be strong evidence that Doctor Octogon, who was the only other keep voter, who writes in the same odd cadences, and most of whose edits center around trying to insert vanity references to Herb Gilliland into various articles, is a sockpuppet of Gilliland/Young Zaphod. Checkuser confirmation of this would be useful. Nandesuka 03:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

finger jlambert@andrew.cmu.edu
[andrew.cmu.edu]
(Email addressed to 'jlambert@andrew.cmu.edu' will not be delivered to the
following user because the account is suspended.)
           name:  Jason Lambert
                  Jason W Lambert
     department:  Tepper School of Business

     login name:  jlambert

         e-mail:  This account has no electronic mailbox; the addressee's
                  account has been disabled.  There is no email forwarding
                  address.  Please use other means to contact this person.

There are thousands of people who go to CMU. Also, web searches and finger jlambert@andrew.cmu.edu reveals User:Jlambert also goes, or has gone, to CMU and held at least one account there. So this is insufficient evidence or proof. It may be that User:Jlambert is simply a slanderer and wishes to create the appearance of vanity, or that a CMU following was revealed and that sockpuppetry was not to blame at all. Doctor Octagon 03:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say that that finger output reveals that jlambert no longer has an account at CMU. Nandesuka 04:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There are 7 schools/colleges at CMU, many cross-disciplinary, according to Carnegie Mellon-- it's very possible that other accounts have existed, or that jlambert still has friends who are on the campus network, which is the largest and most advanced in the world according to Carnegie Mellon. All this proves is that Jason Lambert's Tepper School account has been disabled for whatever reason, and that one existed/exists. Doctor Octagon 04:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add that similarities in chosen language is one way of determining sockpuppetry. Of course, its not as weighty as IP similarities, but it is definitely an indicator of unoriginality. Doctor Octagon 04:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Clerk note: Some content on this page appears to have been copied from User_talk:Doctor Octagon --Kevin_b_er 03:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Rejected. No. I recommend dispute resolution; possibly mediation. Mackensen (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)