Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum

Jvolkblum 15

 * Suspected sock puppets

Code letter:F

Most of the recent Jvolkblum-like activity has been from IPs that are used no more than once or twice, but there also are some registered users. I don't think I've captured the full list of IPs.
 * Supporting evidence:
 * has an edit record that is strongly consistent with Jvolkblum; has been blocked and reverted by Wknight94.
 * Comment by doncram Is this where discussion of evidence occurs? If not, please advise me and/or move this comment.  On the case of Moriarty09, the four edits currently showing do not provide evidence that convinces me this is the same editor as Jvolkblum, because I believe that it is possible that there are more than one New Rochelle area editors who have been swept up in the accusations here.  I note this as a kind of technical objection here, because I do think it likely that Moriarty09 is the same editor as some other socks previously swept up into this, and there may be no practical difference in treatment which can now be implemented.  I cannot and do not want to review the entire Jvolkblum history and separate out which ones in the history were in fact separate persons.  But as I stated in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, I believe that it would be very difficult for any new wikipedia editor to emerge in the New Rochelle area without editing some of the articles previously edited by any of the previously identified socks, and then experiencing heavy-handed deletions and being labelled a sock.  If an unfair sock accusation happened, i do not see what other recourse a would-be new editor would have, other than opening a new account and continuing to edit.
 * Anyhow, the Moriarty09 editor made 2 entirely unrelated edits (a copyedit to the the Gridiron building article that improved the article in my view, and an edit to the Ann Street (Manhattan) article about which i have no opinion). Then, the editor added a New Rochelle red-link to a list of Cemeteries named Holy Sepulchre Cemetery, which seems like a fine edit, although perhaps revealing an interest in New Rochelle-area articles.  I don't see that as adequate to identify the editor is Jvolkblum.  Then, the editor made one comment in the above-linked wt:NRHP discussion, defending an edit made by another account in the article about New Rochelle, an edit which Orlady brought up as an example of probable source fabrication by Jvolkblum socks.  I take it was then that Wknight blocked the Moriarty09 editor.  I don't dispute that Moriarty09 is likely the same as the other account.  However, with further research it turns out that Orlady's allegation of fabrication was incorrect, and that Moriarty09's comment was substantially correct.  So, I don't see any evidence of destructive editing by Moriarty09;  it is only an association to previous socks (and not necessarily to the original Jvolkblum) which is likely here.  And, I don't see that justice or whatever is served by blocking this one account.  Given the discusson at wt:NRHP in which i stated an interest in making an unban proposal, i think that it could be helpful to allow Moriarty09 to be unblocked, if only to allow the person to show restraint. By this comment, though, i want mainly to note the possibility that this Moriarty09 editor is not the same editor as Jvolkblum. doncram (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In partial response to Doncram's comments, Jvolkblum socks have done extensive editing in some Manhattan articles. Ann Street (Manhattan) is one of these. It has been edited previously by at least three different Jvolkblum sockpuppets. Moriarty09's edit to that article restored language previously provided by one or more of these socks. --Orlady (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * apparently recreated one or more Jvolkblum articles before being blocked and reverted by Wknight94.
 * restored a Jvolkblum edit that I had deleted a short while earlier.
 * added an unsourced paragraph to Beechmont (New Rochelle), which is one of Jvolkblum's articles.
 * posted on Doncram's talk page to complain that Wknight94 and I are picking on people interested in contributing content about New Rochelle.
 * made three edits to New City, New York, including deleting an image without explanation and for no apparent reason. This may be coincidence, but Jvolkblum has sometimes inflicted this type of minor damage on articles for New City and other communities that are near New Rochelle.
 * No comment concerning Jvolkblum, but I would note that New City is not really near New Rochelle. New Rochelle is on the east side of Westchester, on the Long Island Sound, and New City is in Rockland County about 30 miles away, across the Hudson River and inland and north. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Added a little bit later:
 * has just one edit. A little while ago this IP user reverted Wknight94's changes to Ann Street (Manhattan), calling them "vandalism." --Orlady (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

that Moriarty09 is related. A good deal of his editing is through an98.14.133.106 open proxy (since blocked).

Jjespere is also, although I would rephrase that as "very likely" on behavioural evidence, looking at his deleted contributions. The same user is also the IP 98.14.133.106.

174.133.55.25 appears to be a proxying/IP-masking service -- WHOIS shows. The range appears to be 174.133.55.16/28.

174.34.157.70 may also be an open proxy -- the WHOIS information gives, but I haven't got access to a port scanner at the moment. The range is 174.34.156.0/22.

I don't see any technical reason to suspect 76.99.17.30 of being Jvolkblum.

64.255.180.74 also might be a proxy -- it is registered to. The range is 64.255.160.0/19.

These need further investigating -- I think it is likely that these three are proxies and that the user behind them is indeed Jvolkblum.

[[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 01:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the 64.255.*.* addresses in my sleep since Jvolkblum uses them often. FWIW, I perused one subrange and almost every edit was to New Rochelle articles and some Indian television list.  That seemed like a strange pattern to me so a range of open proxies makes perfect sense.  —Wknight94 (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC


 * Thanks. Jvolkblum has been a heavy user of "My Privacy Tools." Also, Jupiter Hosting is one of the ISPs that Jvolkblum has used in the past, and there's been a long history of Jvolkblum edits from open-proxy and suspected open-proxy IPs. A major reason for requesting checks on these users is to see if there are any sleeper users on the same IPs -- I hope that any such users on these IPs have been quietly tagged and blocked. --Orlady (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking again, 64.255.160.0/19 probably isn't a range of open proxies. It does appear, however, to be a range used by Opera Mini users, which ties in with other Jvolkblum patterns of editing.  Going on a wider check of the range and taking editing behaviour into consideration, it appears that  and  are also related.  There were no unblocked accounts on any of the other IPs.   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 09:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Both accuonts blocked and a couple articles deleted. BTW, to Doncram, for a reminder of why Jvolkblum is banned, see Talk:Suburb.  —Wknight94 (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I hope you don't mind that I provide, at that Talk page, a devil's advocate-type of response.  I understand the example is one where one of the users caught up in this added material to an article without providing properly explicit sourcing.  Eventually, the contribution is tracked down and entirely removed.  I don't know how to say this without perhaps appearing a bit sarcastic, but this provides a complementary example to at least one case where the user added material with essentially proper sourcing.  In the properly sourced case, the contribution is similarly removed, completely, by one of the enforcers here, with erroneous accusations that the user must have fabricated the source.  So, why bother with the semi-difficult work of composing proper footnote references?  It seems to me that there is an incredible amount of time and resources being put in here, to suppress a would-be contributor, and that you leave no alternative for the user(s) but to create more accounts and to keep editing and to play the big game that you and he/they are playing.  I apologize if this does sound wrong;  i don't mean to offend and I am not confident that I am expressing this properly.  As I state in my devil's advocate-type response at the Suburb talk page, I do abhor the addition of unsourced material to articles, and I have devoted a lot of energy to discussing the general problem.  Further, not said there, i have devoted a lot of thought and energy to specifically addressing the problem in NRHP / historic sites articles, and to trying to keep the problem out of this broad area that i work in.  So, I should summarize that I am torn here, between defending someone who seems to be unfairly treated, vs. agreeing whole-heartedly that the actions of that person deserve to be censured. doncram (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This went beyond plagiarism into copyright violation. Most was copied word-for-word.  But this isn't the right place to discuss that issue.  I responded at Talk:Suburb and maybe it's time to raise this at WP:AN.  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

Jvolkblum 14

 * Suspected sock puppets









Code letter:F

KnickNKnack is a new user whose only edit was to re-create Travers Island (New York), an article that has been created in the past (with various titles) by Jvolkblum socks. I have no doubt that this is Jvolkblum. The only contribution by IP 38.108.179.9 (from a host that I have not seen Jvolkblum use previously) was an edit to that article, two hours after the article was created. In general, I assume that only Jvolkblum would be editing a new Jvolkblum article, but it is possible that this is a good samaritan who stopped by to clean up the article.
 * Supporting evidence:

MissMaintenance is a new user whose first edits have included additions to New Rochelle, New York (one of Jvolkblum's primary interests), creation of a user page that is much like some others that Jvolkblum puppets have created, and a couple of other very miscellaneous edits. This pattern is consistent with some past Jvolkblum socks.
 * ✅ the following:

IP range also blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I added to the report. This is a new user who reverted Wknight94's reversion of an edit to Thomas Paine Cottage by (there is also one other unrelated edit). --Orlady (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- lucasbfr  ho ho ho 12:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

. There are factors that prevent a link being made, but it is entirely possible that this is also Jvolkblum. [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 14:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am adding to the report. This user's contribution is the same as Gary wyatt's (which had been reverted), and Wknight94 has already blocked this user as a Jvolkblum sock. A check is requested due to the likelihood that there are additional sleeper accounts. --Orlady (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

✅ that is the same as 12andUniversity. [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 16:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked. Tiptoety talk 17:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * , then. --Deskana (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding three IPs to check for related activity: All three edits by are extremely duck-like. This diff from December 24 by (including its edit summary) screams "DUCK" to me; and there's a new edit that's mildly duck-like. Also, Wknight94 reverted three edits to Westchester County, New York by for being the work of Jvolkblum. --Orlady (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * IPs fit Jvolkblum (same ISPs, location, etc.), but no sleepers found. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 06:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking those IPs. I'm adding another:. This IP is on one of Jvolkblum's favored hosts, and the IP's sole edit (at least that I am aware of) was a Jvolkblum-ish complaint on a talk page. --Orlady (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, theplanet.com. No sleepers found. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Jvolkblum 13

 * Suspected sock puppets





Code letter:F

I have no doubt that new user JSpano is Jvolkblum, based on behavior. The IP user is in a block that Jvolkblum has used repeatedly, and this user has edited the article that JSpano created a little while earlier, plus some other New Rochelle articles.
 * Supporting evidence:

MentosTFM has just two edits. This user showed up in early November to create -- and do one more edit on -- a new article about an historic property in New Rochelle (one of Jvolkblum's pet topics). The article looks like Jvolkblum's work.

MuffinSangria is a new user who created New Rochelle Blackberry, for which I have requested speedy deletion. It is a recreation of Lawton Blackberry, which was deleted earlier after being created by one of Jvolkblum's socks. Also, this user posted a classic Jvolkblum remark on another user's user talk page: "I have a pretty good understanding of the site so far but I still am wondering what the purpose of the user page is?"

These are all I have found for now; history suggests that there are others. --Orlady (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding NRlibrarian -- this new user started two New Rochelle articles that I believe are re-creations of deleted Jvolkblum articles. Behavior is clearly that of a Jvolkblum sock. --Orlady (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding 64.255.180.63 as an FYI -- Wknight94 has already reverted some duck-like edits from that IP. --Orlady (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding 216.12.206.9 -- this IP restored one of the "duck" edits that Wknight94 had just reverted, with an edit summary that labeled Wknight94's edit as "vandalism." Orlady (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ the following as Jvolkblum socks:

is. Technical evidence is obfuscated by Blackberry use (I only bring this up because Jvolkblum has edited via Blackberry on a number of occasions in the past); possibility of block should be considered solely on contrib evidence. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 08:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) (confirmed when you take technical/contrib evidence in tandem)
 * 1) (confirmed when you take technical/contrib evidence in tandem)
 * 1) (confirmed when you take technical/contrib evidence in tandem)
 * 1) (confirmed when you take technical/contrib evidence in tandem)
 * 1) (confirmed when you take technical/contrib evidence in tandem)
 * 1) (confirmed when you take technical/contrib evidence in tandem)
 * 1) (confirmed when you take technical/contrib evidence in tandem)

I just added "No faux pas" to this case. This new user's only contributions (two edits) have been to recreate Sound Shore Medical Center of Westchester (previously created and edited by various Jvolkblum socks) and edit it. The article is pretty inept (it doesn't look like Jvolkblum's typical style), but this is also not the typical work of a genuine newbie. --Orlady (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked & tagged. Tiptoety  talk 20:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding two IP users to the report. 84.16.230.15 posted a rant about my New Rochelle edits on User talk:Jim.henderson, rehashing some issues that Jvolkblum socks have been hammering on for a while, and 69.64.213.10 followed it up on the article talk page in this diff. Whether or not there are any sleepers using these IPs, both of them could turn out to be open proxies. --Orlady (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The following are Jvolkblum socks on the two IPs:

IPs also blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked & tagged. Tiptoety talk 02:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

84.16.230.15 is based in Germany, but has been used by people interested in New Rochelle. Probable open proxy. -- Avi (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

69.64.213.10 -- Avi (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Named accounts blocked & tagged, no action taken against any of the IPs. Tiptoety talk 00:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Jvolkblum 12

 * Suspected sock puppets







Code letter:F

I have no doubt that JGMetrics is Jvolkblum, based on behavior. The IP user appears to be the same user, accidentally editing logged out; two of this user's three contributions were edits to an article (about a New Rochelle topic) that had been recently created by JGMetrics -- and JGMetrics showed up a few minutes later to continue editing the article. If one Jvolkblum puppet is active, there probably are others, so please check... --Orlady (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Supporting evidence:

I just added CMG11 -- a new user who has made 3 very inconsequential edits to an article that has lately received attention from Jvolkblum puppets. --Orlady (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DUCK, I've blocked JGMetrics and deleted several articles per WP:CSD. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * is, based on the previous IPs/ISPs Jvolkblum has used. is , same geographic location, but not enough information to determine a relationship via checkuser. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 06:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I just added 3 IPs. 69.86.225.195 has been used by Jvolkblum in the past. The other two have one edit each. The three IPs made three related Jvolkblum-like edits to Sound Shore Medical Center of Westchester in a short period of time. --Orlady (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I just added a 4th IP. 166.216.128.11 reverted my reversion of one of the other IP edits to Sound Shore Medical Center of Westchester, said in the edit summary that Orlady should have added a CN tag instead of deleting the unsourced paragraph, and added a citation to one of the obscure offline books that Jvolkblum puppets frequently cite. --Orlady (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Now there's a 5th IP -- 166.216.128.7 has made one Jvolkblum-style edit to the Sound Shore article. --Orlady (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I just added a 6th IP -- 32.142.233.118 has made one edit; that edit restored content to Sheldrake Lake that had been deleted for being the contribution of banned user Jvolkblum. --Orlady (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I just added a 7th IP, yet another single-edit anonymous user whose one edit is a Jvolkblum classic. 64.255.180.23 removed a maintenance tag from Leland Castle, which is one of Jvolkblum's pet articles. --Orlady (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've deleted three more of the target articles. It turns out all three were created by Jvolkblum socks and then turned into battlegrounds by other Jvolkblum socks.  —Wknight94 (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I just added an 8th IP, 64.255.180.70. This user (same IP range and host as the previous IP) has made two inconsequential edits, both of which were to articles about New Rochelle islands that have been articles of interest for Jvolkblum (one of them, Huckleberry Island (New York), was created by a Jvolkblum sock and has not had substantial edits by anyone else; the other, Columbia Island (New York), has had diverse contributors). --Orlady (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Possible Jvolkblum socks from the IPs (same geographic location, some operating from previously used ISPs, others are on new ISPs):

IP used to create sleepers blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh! I just added a new user. Perzance created an elaborate user page just minutes after registering, then made a small edit to National Register of Historic Places listings in Westchester County, New York, which is an article that Jvolkblum has been interested in (it links to several New Rochelle articles). I wish I didn't have to have this gut feeling about a new user, but this user's behavior is too familiar (a classic Jvolkblum sleeper). --Orlady (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding another newly registered user (strong behavioral link to Jvolkblum: Treyert's first edits after registering were to welcome self to Wikipedia by creating user and user talk pages; then the user proceeded to create articles about topics close to Jvolkblum's interests) and an IP (on an ISP that Jvolkblum has often used; edits include a change to one of Treyert's new articles, an edit to a New York City-related article I had recently edited, and the unexplained display of Jvolkblum's New Rochelle template and several other templates in Execution Rocks Light, an article of longstanding interest to Jvolkblum). PS - When I added Perzance I accidentally moved this to "declined" instead of "outstanding." This case was moved back to "completed" with a note saying it was "not declined," but it doesn't look like Perzance was checked. --Orlady (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ the following:

also. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And another new user: LeoGarmani has exactly one edit. Four minutes after joining, this user added the word "the" to an article that Jvolkblum has been involved with. I would love to think that this is a new user learning the ropes, but the behavior makes me think "new Jvolkblum sleeper." --Orlady (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

. I ran the check due to the intense socking by Jvolkblum, but in general, we would need somewhat more evidence than one edit and a hunch. -- Avi (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I just added another new user. Quagmier is a new user who rapidly created several articles (written and sourced in the Jvolkblum style) on subjects about which Jvolkblum puppets have created articles in the past. The article titles are different from the titles used in the past, likely to evade detection of the recreation/sockpuppetry. --Orlady (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Jvolkblum 11

 * Suspected sock puppets









Code letter:F

I have no doubt that new user MacDoug's is our banned friend Jvolkblum. This brand new user wasted no time in recreating an article (Wildcliff) that has been previously deleted as a contribution from banned user Jvolkblum, then this user proceeded to dump a large amount of unsourced content into another article frequently edited by Jvolkblum. --Orlady (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Supporting evidence:
 * FYI, I've already blocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Jvolkblum typically uses multiple registrations at any one time, and maintains sleepers. I hope that ranges will be checked, and that suspected socks from the last round will be rechecked. --Orlady (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added an IP, due primarily to the edit summary on this edit, which is typical of many previous edits by Jvolkblum. Additionally, most of this IP's activity has been on articles of interest to Jvolkblum (New Rochelle topics and Sarah Lawrence College). --Orlady (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC) -:✅ =  = .  =  =  =  =  = . . Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 07:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I just added another new user, Totallimit, who shares Jvolkblum's fascination with islands that may or may not be part of New Rochelle. --Orlady (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I just added two more entries. New user Whatsthedeal showed up and removed content from several articles about Tennessee topics. Some of the edits were defensible, but some appear to be petty vandalism (such as this one). On past occasions (documented in some of the sockpuppetry cases), Jvolkblum puppets and IPs have removed content from articles about Tennessee, apparently in an attempt to "get at" me. Whois says that IP user 84.16.227.231 is in Germany, but in the past Jvolkblum has edited from IPs all over the world (probably open proxies, although only a few of them ever checked out as open proxies), and this IP's behavior is unmistakably Jvolkblum (I'm 100% sure). There's this edit, reverting my revert of an edit by a blocked Jvolkblum sock and stating that my edit was "attempting to stir up trouble", and there are several edits (such as this one) that restored Whatsthedeal's versions of various Tennessee articles. --Orlady (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet another one already: Originalspicy. This brand-new user registered here, went to Commons to upload an image -- and assign that image to the New Rochelle History category created recently by a Jvolkblum sock, and came back here to create an article to use that image. The article is (of course?) about an obscure topic related to New Rochelle. --Orlady (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC) PS: Originalspicy has now been blocked at Commons. --Orlady (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ =  =  =  = . ✅  =  = . ✅  = sleeper . . Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fast action! I came here to add Wasdone to the report (after reporting a related sockpuppet at Commons), but you had already blocked him! --Orlady (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, 84.16.227.231 is an open proxy. I've extended the block. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All blocked, tagged and (mostly) reverted. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I just added TTS51207 to this case, based on a variety of subtle behavioral clues (call it my "sixth sense"). --Orlady (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ❌. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding UCS508 to the case. This new user account was initially used to make a few minor edits to random articles ("sleeper" activity), then came back a few days later and changed the images in several articles about islands in New Rochelle (those islands are among Jvolkblum's favorite topics). --Orlady (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Adding IP 69.10.33.195 to the case. This is an anonymizer IP (on a service that Jvolkblum has used in the past) that has been used to edit several articles of interest to Jvolkblum, including adding several images that were recently uploaded to Commons by User:UnclePhilB, who originally registered here but has only contributed at Commons, and who I suspect is a Jvolkblum sock. --Orlady (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ =  =  =  =  =  = . Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged (I also fixed the UCS508/USC508 typo in Nishkid's results). —Wknight94 (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding 2995civil and Pgnyc5678 to the case. User 2995civil has just one edit, which was to revert the removal of some content added to a New Rochelle article by one of the recent Jvolkblum puppets. The user also obtained an automatically created account at Commons (an unusual thing for a true newbie to do). As long as I'm here, I'm also asking for a check on user Pgnyc5678 -- a new user whose name is similar to some of these other user names and whose only contributions were small additions to the Sarah Lawrence College article (one of Jvolkblum's main interests). --Orlady (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I just zapped as well.  Added above.  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ and .  is . Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 06:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * All three blocked and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 06:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Jvolkblum (10)

 * Suspected sock puppets


 * Code letter: F


 * Supporting evidence:

I have no doubt that these accounts are the banned user Jvolkblum. If past history is an indication (see previous checkuser and sockpuppetry cases), there probably are others.

N.R.USPS reverted most of my changes to an article created and tended by Jvolkblum puppets (diff) and labeled my actions as vandalism. (Among other things, I found that Jvolkblum's article had been a copyvio.) After I reverted that edit, the user reverted me (this diff).

Bigrigged made an innocuous edit to the New Rochelle post office article (diff), but has been more active (and problematic) at Commons.

The IP user has posted an attack on me on another user's talk page and made a Jvolkblum-style edit about New Rochelle to an article (diff).

Related: I posted several related checkuser requests on Commons, at commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChucksBike-O-Rama.

--Orlady (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Technical evidence indicates that the following accounts are likely related to the list of accounts below in previous Jvolkblum requests:

-- Avi (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked & Tagged. Tiptoety  talk 01:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding two more to check:

These two three users ( one two new, the other newly active) have focused on articles that were created and/or extensively tended by Jvolkblum puppets. --Orlady (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Highly  =  = .  and  are, same geographical location. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 06:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Duachia and Stretchdenim blocked and tagged. I've not investigated Klade111 and Stellaweis further.  —Wknight94 (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding another several more to check:

More brand new users. Liampaar's only edit was to restore some content contributed several weeks ago (in an obscure article about a residential subdivision in New Rochelle) by one of Jvolkblum's socks, and deleted by me less than 3 hours before Liampaar restored it. (I have no doubt that this is Jvolkblum.) --Orlady (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * FTR: The link to the diff in the above statement is broken because the article was deleted (by Wknight94, due to its association with banned user Jvolkblum). The user is still here. --Orlady (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, true enough. Here is the deleted edit diff.  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding 3 more. Achtungson's first contributions as a brand-new user were the creation of Glen Island (New Rochelle), Travers Island (New Rochelle), and Neptune Island (New Rochelle), the recreations of Jvolkblum articles (with slightly different titles, specifically Glen Island, Travers Island (New York), "Neptune Island (New York)) that had been deleted just hours earlier.

Prestondone is another brand-new user whose only Wikipedia activity has been to allege (at Editor assistance/Requests) that my efforts to identify Jvolkblum sockpuppets are motivated by some sort of conflict of interest (specifically involving the Open Directory Project) and/or personal animus against New Rochelle.

Guurlina's only contribution so far has been the re-creation (under a slightly different title) of the recently deleted article U.S. Post Office (New Rochelle, New York). --Orlady (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Have another two:

Tied in with the above discussion, surrounding the Editor assistance thread; Spieilcast removed a post I made to Orlady's talk page asking her to check the EAR thread for Jvolkblum's MO (and strangely tried to impersonate the editor directly above that post). The IP has one edit, a post on Prestondone's talk page stating "dont even try to fuck with me because you will never win" which looks kind of suspicious. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tony Fox. I hadn't noticed the deletion activity on my user page. However, I now see that Spieilcast also tried to impersonate User:Spellcast on my talk page, overwriting Spellcast's signature on another message. (This suggests that the Spieilcast name was selected for that purpose.) The IP belongs to ThePlanet, which is the owner of many IPs that have been used by Jvolkblum to edit while logged out. Indeed, at one point recently I thought that an IP block had been placed on the whole 75.125.166.xxx range. --Orlady (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DUCK, I've blocked Liampaar, Achtungston, Prestondone, Guuurlina, and Spieilcast. Will change tags to confirmed if/when...  —Wknight94 (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he wasn't too happy with me blocking 75.125.163.128/27 and 75.125.166.0/27, which are anonymizers from a company called My Privacy Tools. I've blocked yet another range from the same company: 75.125.166.32/27. Perhaps a CU could scan those ranges for possible sleepers? Spellcast (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅  =  =  =  =  = . I originally found two sock groups on different corporate proxy IPs (?), but I realized that Prestondone was a match in both lists, so I've confirmed all the above as sockpuppets. I've blocked the IP range Prestondone was operating on, which was used in the past month by a few dozen confirmed Jvolkblum sockpuppets. With regards to Spellcast's IP range CU check, I've found the following sleepers:

There ya go. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

All blocked and tagged with the exception of, maybe you got the spelling wrong Nishkid? Tiptoety talk 21:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Try User:Whaahtoosie. That user name had several Jvolkblum-like edits at Commons, and is part of my unresolved addition to a checkuser request there. --Orlady (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant . Apologies for the confusion. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Already blocked by Nishkid.  OhanaUnited  Talk page  23:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)



Adding 3 more to check. I think I've asked for a check on Stellaweis previously, but the check was inconclusive. Based on behavior, I'm sure this user is Jvolkblum. This user's edit history in article space consists of one edit to an article created and tended by Jvolkblum socks -- the edit added some history information that is sourced to an obscure print-only book about New Rochelle. Jvolkblum likes to cite obscure books like that one that I normally would not question if it weren't for the fact that many Jvolkblum contributes supported by that type of reference have turned out to be copypastes from uncited sources. Additionally, this user created generic user pages and a generic user talk page -- something Jvolkblum does for many of his socks.

The IP user is associated with an IP that apparently belongs to an anonymizer service that I've seen on many Jvolkblum edits in the past. The user's first contribution was to restore a large chunk of plagiarized content (which I had deleted) to a New Rochelle article created by Jvolkblum puppet Sofacandy. Since then, the user has made many small changes to articles about people allegedly from New Rochelle.

Klamfph was created on 9 October, but showed up just recently to make a few small edits in articles about Iona College (which just happens to be in New Rochelle, and has been extensively tended by Jvolkblum puppets in the past) and to create a Jvolkblum-like blank user page. --Orlady (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I could tell they were anonymizers from the whois record on DomainTools. That site gave more info than the whois search on samspade.org. Spellcast (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked another,. Perhaps another sleeper scan is in order? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ =  =  =  = . . Previously requested check . Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume you meant which was blocked earlier.  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Typo, sorry. Regarding the previously requested check, =  = .  appears ❌ as far as I can tell.  remains . Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)



Adding another request to this case: Stephernator. This contributor's interests strongly intersect the interests of Jvolkblum and puppets, and past history leads me to suspect that any new user with a similar combination of interests is probably a new incarnation of Jvolkblum. Additionally, one of this users more substantial edits (this diff) just happens to have included the removal (not noted in the edit summary) of an image of a New Rochelle-area topic that was not contributed by a Jvolkblum sock or suspected sock. (Jvolkblum has a practice of removing and replacing images from other users.) --Orlady (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as we're still going, for completeness, add as well.  Already blocked and tagged as suspected.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Stephernator's most recent edit (diff) inserted an image that was uploaded to Commons several months ago by a sockpuppet of Jvolkblum. (Many Jvolkblum sockpuppets have been blocked at Commons, but many of the numerous images that they uploaded remain there -- and get inserted here by new Jvolkblum sockpuppets.) --Orlady (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Technical and behavioral evidence accessible at this time indicates that it is likely that is part of the extended Jvolkblum family.

Technical and behavioral evidence accessible at this time is inconclusive regarding.

Do we need to start a new section? This section is somewhat convoluted.

-- Avi (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Tiptoety  talk 21:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Jvolkblum 9

 * Suspected sock puppets
 * (forgot to list at filing)
 * Code letter: F
 * (forgot to list at filing)
 * Code letter: F
 * (forgot to list at filing)
 * Code letter: F
 * (forgot to list at filing)
 * Code letter: F
 * (forgot to list at filing)
 * Code letter: F
 * (forgot to list at filing)
 * Code letter: F
 * (forgot to list at filing)
 * Code letter: F
 * (forgot to list at filing)
 * Code letter: F

This is a sort of cross wiki CU request. The real master is a long term puppetmaster here on en wiki, Jvolkblum. See his 18th SSP report at en:Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (18th). Here today he's shown up in this AN report on commons: commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Attention - which is about false licensing uploads, as ChucksBike-O-Rama, who is also in the en wiki SSP report. I suspect serious shenaningans going on. The commons wiki RFCU is: commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChucksBike-O-Rama. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Supporting evidence:


 * Results of the Commons case are available at commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChucksBike-O-Rama still working this one. ++Lar: t/c 00:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Results: Confirm that the following are related to each other (via CU) and to Jvolkblum (based on behaviour)

Further, these IPs are problematic and were blocked

I also put down some range blocks. Further, I think that and their socks are also JV... Please check my work, I may have missed some or mistagged some. ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Lar blocked and tagged all. Outstanding work Lar! — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

One additional IP to check: -- A short time ago this IP user (at ThePlanet) placed a "disputed" template on Travers Island (New York) after I replaced some sockpuppet content with material that I found in a cited source. --Orlady (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Another ThePlanet IP restored sockpuppet content to the same article: --Orlady (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This brand new user reverted a new EL addition in Larchmont, New York -- that's a situation that blocked sock Pasoradobles99 was following, so I assume thet Squeakyshoe is a new sock. --Orlady (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * One edit is somewhat sparse, but current evidence does not rule out a potential relationship. -- Avi (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Brand new user who just added a whole bunch of reference citations in New Rochelle, New York. --Orlady (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ =  = sleeper . Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked & Tagged. Tiptoety  talk 01:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Two brand-new users making minor edits in articles about Westchester county communities.--Orlady (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC) I've gone ahead and blocked them all as socks of Jvolkblum. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got some interesting results that I'd like to run by another CU first. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ =  = .  on a different ISP entirely,  but the location of the IP matches up with Lucy tran and a few suspected IP socks of Jvolkblum, so I'll call this . The following sleepers on LuxyDolor's IP are  as Jvolkblum:


 * Wow.... Thanks for all the work you ended up doing on what looked like a measly request. --Orlady (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * All tagged. (Also, blocked a few that were missed) Tiptoety  talk 00:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Jvolkblum 8







 * Code letter: F


 * Supporting evidence:
 * 

Several new suspected sock puppets; see Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (14th) for details. Requesting a check to see if there is a technical connection to Jvolkblum and if there is, if there are any other accounts. --Orlady (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Taking a look now. ++Lar: t/c 18:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ - rather obvious, some of them, the following accounts as socks of Jvolkblum:




 * - I EC'd with Lar and was already running the case. Sorry, Lar! - A l is o n  ❤ 19:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I just got done with my investigation too. I'm not as sure about Kroywen being linked... block on behaviour, I'd say. But maybe. The rest, yes very much so... plus
 * (maybe just an unrelated SPA who likes wine...)
 * Advise of questions ++Lar: t/c 20:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (maybe just an unrelated SPA who likes wine...)
 * Advise of questions ++Lar: t/c 20:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Advise of questions ++Lar: t/c 20:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the checking! I've just now added two more to the list (see the current sockpuppetry case for evidence): CavalierInc. and Collier Strong 08. --Orlady (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 02:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the prompt attention. Note that User:CavalierInc. and User:Collier Strong 08 apparently have not been checked yet (much less blocked). --Orlady (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ - the others;




 * - A l is o n  ❤ 03:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Lest we thought that Jvolkblum might give us some rest, here's another one to check: User:NYlocalhistorian -- in the first 33 minutes after registering, this "new" user created the new category Category:People from New Rochelle, New York and added more than 50 articles to it. --Orlady (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ - ufff! This is getting tedious. If he keeps at it, we may have to consider blocking his range or something - A l is o n  ❤ 05:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

New set of 4 blocked and tagged. YES, range block this guy. — Rlevse  •  Talk  •

I just added two new suspected socks: Bessiemoo and Duane & Reade. See Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (15th) for details. (Yes, this is extremely tedious. If Jvolkblum wants to create an online encyclopedia about New Rochelle trivia, let him/her get his/her own website and handle his/her own verification and copyright issues.) --Orlady (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked them indef too. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I just now added a new user and a new IP. User:StAuNcH ChArAcTeR is listed at the latest Jvolkblum sockpuppetry case. Less than one hour after I listed that user as a suspected sockpuppet, User:207.218.231.214 showed up to remove the PROD template (which had been added 5 days ago; "funny" that no action was taken until it appeared on the sockpuppetry case) from Bank Street (Manhattan)‎ (which was mentioned in the sockpuppetry case) and went to Sarah Lawrence College campus and rearranged the text (one of Jvolkblum's characteristic practices) and added a bunch of images (which appear to me to be images removed earlier for copyvio issues). The IP is from ThePlanet.com, which is one of several ISPs that Jvolkblum uses to edit logged out. It would be very nice if it would be possible to block the IP ranges that Jvolkblum uses, but there are many... --Orlady (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC) ADDED: As it happens, the one edit that User:207.218.231.214 made to Sarah Lawrence College campus was a revert that restored changes made earlier by now-blocked Jvolkblum sock User:Marcello Khattar; these are clearly the same person. --Orlady (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ - the following accounts:




 * - A l is o n  ❤ 00:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged..... Tiptoety  talk 00:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Jvolkblum 7







 * Code letter: F


 * Supporting evidence:
 * 

Three new suspected sock puppets, evidence is at Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (12th). Could a check be done to see if there is a technical connection to Jvolkblum and if there is, if there are any other accounts. BlueAzure (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Im looking to understand this claim. I do not see what justification exists for the above user to make such a request for 'checkuser'? I feel as if there is a clear violation of my basic rights as a user and a definite misuse (or even abuse) of power? Please assist?

Sincerely, Rebecca Teresa Gellar
 * & have both been blocked indefinitely. Clearly Jvolk.  Rudget   ( logs ) 15:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Jvolkblum = R.T.Gellar = Marcello Khattar = Patrick O'Neil.
 * Also, and .  Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 14:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I just now added another user to this request. New user User:James Conoco's editing interests and edits fit the pattern of numerous previous Jvolkblum sockpuppets. --Orlady (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ that this is Jvolkblum, mostly per the very obvious behaviour. No obvious socks.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I added two more users to this request. I just added new users SixtyThompsonGal and Cookie Carlos 78. See the sockpuppetry case at Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (13th) for evidence. Note that James Conoco is still active. --Orlady (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Added two IPs. See the sockpuppetry case for more information. --Orlady (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * also
 * All blocked and tagged. Nothing interesting to say about the IPs beyond what is on the SSP page.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * also
 * All blocked and tagged. Nothing interesting to say about the IPs beyond what is on the SSP page.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. Nothing interesting to say about the IPs beyond what is on the SSP page.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. Nothing interesting to say about the IPs beyond what is on the SSP page.
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

At the request of User:WJBscribe (see ) I have run a crosswiki check.
 * I find it extremely that Commons user User:Yuckycurry  is the same user as en user user:Jvolkblum...  and his/her socks. Please advise of any questions or concerns. See  on commons for more information (permlink, may have additional info added after this diff) ++Lar: t/c 03:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Jvolkblum 6



 * Code letter: F


 * Supporting evidence:
 * 

Jolkblum edits from open proxies, so confirmation is unlikely, but checking if the accounts are likely would be helpful. CedricRobinson was blocked at Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (7th), Point Place 1970 was marked as possible sockpuppet but scarce evidence. It's pretty clear that edited from the same IP on the same day, could that be checked. EarthCleaner, PLATOLAWS, and Sweetiedarling are mentioned in Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (8th). EarthCleaner and PLATOLAWS were created two minutes apart, so could it be checked if they were created by the same IP address and if any others accounts were created by the same IP address at that time. BlueAzure (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added Nina Van Horn to the list of accounts above. The account was created two minutes before Point Place 1970 and has edited in Jovlkblum style (additional evidence in Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (8th). BlueAzure (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of the confirmed accounts from last time have not been blocked yet!

More coming. Thatcher 04:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)



Might be all. Thatcher 04:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC) all blocked and tagged. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 12:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Two new accounts that have been created since the last group were blocked, evidence at Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (9th). BlueAzure (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added Fajnzylberg101 to the list, evidence in the above suspected sock puppetry case. BlueAzure (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ - the following accounts, all on open proxies, now blocked -




 * - lots of proxies - A l is o n  ❤ 05:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- lucasbfr  talk 09:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The above are additional new accounts that appear to be Jvolkblum based on their creation times and editing interests. See the current sockpuppetry case for details. --Orlady (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly the same user, both blocked indefinitely. Rudget   (Help?) 15:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Proxies, no link to the previous accounts but quack quack etc. Thatcher 02:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the comment about proxies, but it appears that every registered account in the above report is now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that Thatcher was simply pointing out that if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck it's probably a duck. HMishkoff (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding the above 4 users to this request. See Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (11th) for evidence. --Orlady (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ - as socks of, the following:






 * - A l is o n  ❤ 00:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alison. Yet more socks to deal with.... Rudget   (Help?) 16:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Jvolkblum 5







 * Code letter: F
 * Supporting evidence:
 * 

These are the accounts listed in the most recent suspected sockpuppetry case. Dr.Sobelioni appears to be part of the set of accounts that were checked in the last checkuser request and the others appear to be a new set of accounts. BlueAzure (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dr.Sobelioni, Relaxitaxi, and L'espinassse have been blocked for three months each.  M w w 1 1 3    (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I added ten IPs, for reasons discussed at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive420 and one registered user, [April24th1992]]. April24th1992 has only a few edits, but appears to be associated with Jvolkblum based on (1) time lag between registering, creating user page, and editing, (2) types of edits, and (3) choice of articles to edit that overlaps with articles edited by other suspected socks. --Orlady (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Extensive use of IPs from all over the world, the IPs listed above should be listed at WP:OP for confirmation and blocking.  all the same user.
 * ✅ the same user,

--Thatcher 02:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ the same user, likely the same as the others,

Jvolkblum 4



 * Code letter: F


 * Supporting evidence: These newly registered users each have only a few article edits (mostly today), but their editing patterns and interests are similar to those of Jvolkblum and blocked sockpuppets of Jvolkblum. This includes immediate creation of user pages that consist of links to various Wikipedia editing resources (three of the four users did this; BronxBEAT also created a user page immediately after registering, but in a different style), inserting an image (recently uploaded to Commons by a user with the name 15ParkRow, same as the name of a blocked sockpuppet of Jvolkblum) in the New Rochelle article that is identical to one removed earlier for copyvio (see this diff from BingBingBingNBing), showing a committed interest in locating the Execution Rocks Lighthouse in New Rochelle (compare this diff by BronxBEAT with this earlier diff by Pongo101), and embellishing the New Rochelle article with more unsourced names of famous residents (this diff from Wingsolid). Additionally, in this diff, KatieGrinn removed apparently valid content from an article about a nearby suburb. --Orlady (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that the claims above are from user Orlady. I have read several discussions relating to Orlady, specifically the questionable nature of her actions & judgement when dealing with certain users + certain material on the site. These discussions can be found on the talk page of user:EdJohnston and 'Executionrocks'. All i can say is that other users have made mention of similar issues with this user Orlady and due to my experiences I would have to agree with them as well. It is strange. In reviewing what was said above about other users, adding notable residents to an article about a specific locality appears to be a standard practice among users. The ones that you referenced in New Rochelle all look like they are cited properly (The list is probably the most thoroughly cited one you can find~ cross referencing to other communities will show that). I do not see how this is anything but a valid, helpful contribution to the article and the site. ??? The last user mentioned, Katiegrin, didnt remove information from the article as you have stated. I read the edit link you provided and it shows the content was moved to a different section and it does not show any evidence of information being deleted. This page is an entirely different community, albeit a neighboring one to the earlier mentioned New Rochelle article, which further begs the question of why this user too is being named as a disturbance to the site. ?? --BronxBEAT (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Supposedly the claims above have been proven true. . . yet no substantiating info ('proof') has been provided.  Again, I am not sure of the reasoning behind your rush to make these claims but i will adress them here: I introduced myself on my user page which i believe is exactly what you are supposed to do on it. I am equally confused by the mention of my creating it 'immediately after registering' ??? The first place i clicked on after registering was my 'name' in the heading on the top of the page, whereupon i saw intructions advising me to create a 'user page'. If my contributions on the Execution Rocks light article were similar to another users one might look at the logical connection (most specifically the availability of a discussion page and edit history log on every article which is where I saw the 'location debate'). I made changes just like that of a prior editor which I believed accurate (specifically: putting the name of the city in the location desciption in the info. box). My edits were to make sure there was accuracy of information. The final edit to the page was my clear attempt to be cordial and to show understanding of user Orladys point of view, personally suggesting a compromise to the situation and personally making the changes to follow through with the compromise. It is confusing to see these acceptable actions as part of 'supporting evidence' of wrongdoing.


 * ✅. Thatcher 01:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking. --Orlady (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * also ✅. Thatcher 01:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Jvolkblum 3





 * Code letter: F


 * Supporting evidence:


 * 

EddieMonsoon was blocked as a sock of Jvolkblum at Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (4th). Pongo101 was created two minutes before EddieMonsoon. Pongo101's first edit was eight minutes after EddieMonsoon's last edit. Pongo101's first edit was to created a userpage that is identical to one created by EddieMonsoon and another Jvolkblum sock 15ParkRow. The rest of Pongo101's edits have been to the same set of articles as previous Jvolkblum socks. BlueAzure (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding 3 new-user IPs to this request based on their editing patterns, which are focused on (1) negative edits to articles about communities near New Rochelle and (2) adding information about New Rochelle to other articles, and (3) criticizing me and articles I have touched. All of these behaviors are hallmarks of Jvolkblum accounts. --Orlady (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ EddieMonsoon is Pongo101. No comment on the IPs. --Deskana (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Pongo101 is indef blocked now. -JodyBtalk 11:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

jvolkblum 2


Request for another additional check:
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence: User is engaging in vandalism and tendentious editing similar to that of blocked user Jvolkblum and sockpuppets. This diff involved systematic dewikification in exactly the same way that Jvolkblum, sockpuppet FlanneryFamily, and others have dewikified this article and related articles. --Orlady (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Supporting evidence: User is engaging in vandalism and tendentious editing similar to that of blocked user Jvolkblum and sockpuppets. This diff involved systematic dewikification in exactly the same way that Jvolkblum, sockpuppet FlanneryFamily, and others have dewikified this article and related articles. --Orlady (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅.  upgraded from Likely to Confirmed and add . Thatcher 23:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for additional checks; evidence is at Suspected sock puppets.
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence: See Suspected sock puppets
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence: See Suspected sock puppets
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence: See Suspected sock puppets
 * Supporting evidence: See Suspected sock puppets

These users appear to be working collaboratively to re-introduce image content that was previously posted by users who are now blocked and/or that has been previously deleted for copyvio. Currently images are being posted at Flickr, uploaded to Commons by a bot, and inserted into Wikipedia articles once they are uploaded at Commons. --Orlady (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fronkenstein and ABC123UNME are ✅, 15ParkRow is as the account has exclusively used open proxies. Thatcher 11:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Appropriate accounts have been tagged as such. Rudget  ( review ) 16:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

jvolkblum


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vassar_College&diff=prev&oldid=201785971
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prestonwood_Town_Center&diff=prev&oldid=201788081
 * Code letter: G
 * Supporting evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prestonwood_Town_Center&diff=prev&oldid=201788081

I believe that Katherinehawk may be a sockpuppet of Jvolkblum, who has been known to post from 24.215.173.132, so I'd like to know if Katherinehawk posts from that IP address as well. As I write this, the Katherinehawk account was used for only a total of about 20 minutes this morning, and has been used only to tag 24 articles as adverts. This is suspicious to me because:


 * Seven of the articles are about colleges in the northeastern U.S. that have been traditionally known as "women's colleges." One college that fits that description that is conspicuously absent from that list is Sarah Lawrence College, an article that Jvolkblum has frequently edited, and which was recently tagged as an advert, an action that Jvolkblum protested (and reverted). I think that Jvolkblum may be using Katherinehawk as a sock puppet to "get even."


 * The remaining articles are about shopping malls, including Prestonwood Town Center, an article that I have edited. I had a disgreement with Jvolkblum a couple of months ago, and Jvolkblum (via the 24.215.173.132 IP address that he often uses) recently tagged that article as an advert, presumably to aggravate me. I reverted the tag, and I think that Jvolkblum may have created Katherinehawk and tagged Prestonwood Town Center again, again to aggravate me, but this time tagged a bunch of malls for "cover."

Anyway, if Katherinehawk uses 24.215.173.132, then my suspicions about that account being a sock puppet will be largely confirmed; if Katherinehawk does not use 24.215.173.132, then I guess it's just a weird coincidence.

Thanks for your help! HMishkoff (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Without officially commenting on the IP, ✅ that Katherinehawk==jvolkblum, also,  and . Thatcher 13:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

''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.''