Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnpacklambert/Archive

03 July 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

I tagged three pages that user:Johnpacklambert create about 2 years ago. They had notability issues for over 2 year.


 * 1) Articles for deletion/Nephi Jensen
 * 2) Articles for deletion/Theodore H. Okiishi
 * 3) Articles for deletion/Juan Zarate (weaver)

Once I tagged them for deletion, Johnpacklambert assumed I had and accused me of bias against him and the subject matter and inappropriate "AFD tagging". Then Johnpacklambert made some changes to the pages, only to have 202.124.73.20, 202.124.73.39 two computers with the same Main frame, make similar changes to the same pages, then all three voted "Keep", and made the exact same accusations of inappropriate "AFD tagging" using the same wording. Additionally, 202.124.73.39 even left me a message accusing me of inappropriate tagging, and then used and 202.124.73.8 to respond. Users 202.124.73.20 and 202.124.73.39 helped Johnpacklambert fix the pages, but only when Johnpacklambert wasn't online. On top of that 202.124.73.20 used the exact same words to justify keeping the one of the pages that Johnpacklambert used, leading me to suspect that he is using at least 2 IP address to vote to keep his own pages.

Diffs using similar arguments in a similar writing style.
 * - Johnpacklambert says "The 179 citations is the top listing in google scholar.
 * - 202.124.73.20 says subject is "cited 1,880 times according to GS (google scholar)"
 * - Shows that Johnpacklambert, 202.124.73.20, and 202.124.73.39 all have "Improved" the subject matter, but never at the same time.
 * - IP went out of his way to make comments on the third of the three AFD I made, despite the fact that the entire page still contains only one uncited sentence. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 12:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * Style differences should be sufficient to distinguish me from Johnpacklambert, but if needed, an IP check will show I'm on the other side of the planet. -- 202.124.74.24 (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Checkuser can't be used to disclose the relationship between a registered user and an IP in most circumstances. Any linkage must be determined using behavioral evidence only. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  12:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the technical aspects of behavior, I see two different people that agree on the merits and have different styles of expressing disagreement with the reporting party. Closing without action. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  12:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

12 May 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

The article John C. McAdams has in the past had several IPs that appear to be either McAdams, or meatpuppets of his, editing with WP:COI implications.

"William Gosset" appeared the same day as "Johnpacklambert" popped up making some extremely POV edits to John C. McAdams.

"Johnpacklambert" appears to have been commenting about coordinated editing at McAdams' blog and ranting about "leftists" there, which is similar to his prior comments for which he was blocked for major WP:BLP violations. Lambert attempted to "source" his edits to non-WP:RS, non-WP:V sources such as right-wing advocacy groups and opinion columns, and attempted to remove entirely the paragraph that Gosset appeared later in the day attempting to rewrite in ways that did not match the source. Given the similarities in time editing and targeted edit combined with the commentary left by Johnpacklambert, I believe it is reasonable to check if he created the "William Gosset" account.

I am also suggesting a check against Levazquez76, who appeared to have a WP:COI connection to McAdams and who did not remain long. Levazquez76 made edit summaries such as "per McAdams".

This may be a matter of sockpuppetry, or a matter of meatpuppetry generating from McAdams' blog posts. However, this rather long comment from the brand-new account "William Gosset" makes me suspect he is a sockpuppet for someone else with an axe to grind regarding McAdams. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

The warning on the top of this page when editing says "Do not make accusations without providing evidence. Doing so is a personal attack and will likely be summarily removed". Just because an editor appears to be a sock puppet, doesn't necessarily mean they are one. Until the person is found to be a sockpuppet, you cannot just revert their edits and accuse them of sock puppetry in the edit summary. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_C._McAdams&oldid=719793731 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_C._McAdams&oldid=719798996. You should have discussed the issue in the talk page.

This person may be a sock puppet, but until proven, editors should assume good faith. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 01:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please note that Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz made a sockpuppet allegation against most of these same users (including all of the IPs, all of which are stale) in March-April; see Sockpuppet investigations/Levazquez76/Archive. That allegation was investigated and no connections were found. The accusation was closed without action. The only new names here are Johnpacklambert and William Gosset. --MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Following up on 's comment, because you closed the other case, could you take a look at this one? I'm tempted to close it myself, but the filer will no doubt go through the roof if I do. Besides, you're more familiar with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The IPs are the same ones listed in the previous report, which I believe are clearly not the same individuals. Those IPs have not made an edit since, so no action is needed there. I can understand the suspicion of the suddenly appearing and contributing to the discussion right away in a familiar manner. I ran a check to compare William Gosset to Levazquez76 and found that they are ❌. Given this result, I don't think there is a basis to continue any further checks. To help prevent any disruption, I've semi-protected the article for 3 months. Mike V • Talk 15:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)