Jbamb (talk · contribs) Alpha269 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Alpha only showed up to basically battle and fight for an article about Jbamb to be kept, and pushed the fight to the point he was banned. Jbamb did not comment on anything to do with his AfD or DV, and only showed up on the WP:AN AFTER Alpha was banned. Seems like sockpuppets to me. Mike _{(T C)} 03:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline: Article John Bambenek sent to AfD. After a colorful discussion loaded with various forms of puppetry on all sides, the article was deleted. User:Alpha269 requested a DRV, which ended with the article remaining deleted (despite spamming by Alpha on many newly minted admins' talk pages). Then, for whatever reason, Alpha269 takes it to the noticeboard. After everyone more or less reaffirms the deltion, Alpha recreated the article (redeleted again), and started an illegitimate RfC, located here. After a spate of incivility, continued disruption in several places (including putting The New York Times on AfD - seriously), I blocked him (with the unsurprising calls of "Wiki-terrorism!" on his talk page).

Coincidently, the subject of John Bambenek happens to be User:Jbamb, who was mum on ther whole ordeal until I blocked Alpha. See the same AN thread. Incivility and accusations of Administrative abuse out of nowhere. It seems to me that they are the same fellow. Requesting Check User. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs: AfD of the New York Times: [1], AfD of John Bambenek [2], RFC by Alpha269 [3], Alpha's posts to the WP:AN [4], Jbamb chims in AFTER the block of Alpha269 [5], Sample of the request placed on new admins talk pages by Alpha269 [6]. Also if you look at Alpha269's contribs he only contributes to AfDs and to things associated with the Bambanek AfD, DRV and RFC. Mike _{(T C)} 04:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept permanent banning if we are on checkuser on the condition that Onthost and Gustafson are permanently banned if I'm not. -- Jbamb 15:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPs which may have been involved include:

• 12.203.38.138
• 130.126.138.6
• 130.126.139.135
• 130.126.139.14

-submitted by Will Beback 05:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that this request is not being made with policy, that no vandalism, vote stacking, or other behavior has been alleged. That being said, I want this issue put to death so that people realize there isn't sockpuppetry (I'm tired of being accused), and that the incivil admins who continue to disregard all policies and guidelines will be reprimanded for their disruption of the community. -- Jbamb 21:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:Alpha269 has in fact engaged in vandalism, such as nominating the New York Times for deletion, as well as other disruptive behavior that has resulted in his being blocked by an admin. -Will Beback 22:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, forgot about that NYT thing, that was a pretty dick thing to do. But the idea that taking an AfD to Deletion Review, than to RFC is disruptive I find intriguing. Particularly in the light of Jeffrey Gustafson's known f!@#% you attitude. -- Jbamb 01:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking for this checkuser. Also if this checkuser comes back positive, Jbamb will be would be evading a block. Mike _{(T C)}

You are taking away from my time in making an encyclopedia. And correct me if I am wrong, I thought Alpha's block was one day. -- Jbamb 03:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Highly likely: CheckUser indicates that Jbamb/Alpha269 are responsible for the IP edits and are most likely sockpuppets. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does "most likely" mean, either we are or are not using the same IPs. -- Jbamb 16:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet checking is an art, not a science. They're definitely using those IPs to edit, and it's most likely they're the same. The latter means I'm at least 90% certain they are the same individual. If I were 100% certain I would have simply confirmed it. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]