Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jvolkblum/Archive

Report date 12 January 2009 17:44 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Orlady

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.
 * has an edit record that is strongly consistent with Jvolkblum; has been blocked and reverted by Wknight94.
 * 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. -- Orlady

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)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * I guess you can tell that I don't live in the area. User:Relaxitaxi, a Jvolkblum sock, made a minor edit in the New City article, and I think that there were some other edits by an anonymous IP who appeared to be Jvolkblum. --Orlady (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Orlady (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

that Moriarty09 is related. A good deal of his editing is through an98.14.133.106 open proxy (since blocked).
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

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.  Ã¢ÂÂ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/Archive 1.  Ã¢ÂÂ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.  Ã¢ÂÂWknight94 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

{possible}} that Moriarty09 is related. A good deal of his editing is through an98.14.133.106 open proxy (since blocked).
 * Case merged from Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum (page history) Tiptoety  talk 22:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

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) Tiptoety talk 21:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Report date January 23 2009, 05:13 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Orlady (talk)

This IP user's edits are unmistakably the work of Jvolkblum (based on the combination of the selection of articles edited, types of changes made, and edit summaries -- including allegations that past reversions of Jvolkblum edits were vandalism). I haven't seen any newly registered users who clearly fit the Jvolkblum behavior pattern, but it is likely that there are some sleepers here. See the 15 previous checkuser cases and the 18 sockpuppetry cases for additional details on the behavior that identifies Jvolkblum. --Orlady (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Orlady (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * IP blocked, as well as two socks, and . Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. For the record, the two registered users are not blocked yet. --Orlady (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I blocked them after running my CU. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed you did. (Duh!!!) And I saw that they were blocked. What is missing is that when I went to their user pages I didn't see the templates. I'll go add the templates to their user pages. (Mutters to self...) --Orlady (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Tiptoety talk 20:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Report date January 26 2009, 05:57 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by Orlady (talk)

Only recent edit by 206.53.144.142 was to revert an edit that I made to Rye Brook, New York, reverting some edits by Jvolkblum sock 24.215.173.135 (see last case). Although this new IP is registered to Waterloo, Ontario, this edit was highly duck-like, and Jvolkblum has a history of using open proxies and other non-US IPs. Other sleeper accounts may exist.

Additionally, there is a potential cross-wiki CU issue. Quarashimoto (identified as Jvolkblum sock in previous case) has uploaded files at Commons. Other apparent Jvolkblum socks recently active at Commons are Westyschuster (blocked in EN as Jvolkblum sock), and LieselMan (active in November 2008; no account on EN). --Orlady (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: The cross-wiki concern is that Jvolkblum is using Commons to evade the block here. One sock uploads files there, then later a different sockpuppet or IP user inserts those files into articles here. Commons has generally been fairly liberal about letting the uploaded images remain, so this arrangement has been pretty effective for Jvolkblum. --Orlady (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am adding a second IP -- 24.215.173.251 -- to this case. This one also has just one edit. That edit added unsourced content to New Rochelle, New York; I determined that the content had been copied from a City of New Rochelle online document. That's one of Jvolkblum's most common patterns. --Orlady (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am adding a newly registered user -- Watersupply. This brand new user contributed an article about the New Rochelle Public Library (see user's contribs), then added the article to Jvolkblum's New Rochelle template. Evidence: This isn't the behavior of a true newbie; the new article is sourced to references that Jvolkblum socks have cited and/or plagiarized before (repeatedly); many Jvolkblum socks have paid loving attention to the template. --Orlady (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am adding yet another IP -- 71.63.117.159 -- to the case. This IP user has two edits, both of which inserted images that had been uploaded to Commons by Jvolkblum sock Westyschuster. --Orlady (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Orlady (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

The IP address geo-locates to Canada because it is a RIM (i.e. blackberry) address.
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

If this is Jvolkblum, this single edit tells us that he may be using a Blackberry to edit round his block, which may be a useful pointer for future cases, but blocking this dynamic IP is going to achieve nothing, and blocking the entire /20 just isn't going to happen.

If we see other edits via A RIM IP address that might allow a smaller range to be blocked without too much collateral damage.

Endorsing CU to investigate whether any IP-account-IP relationships exist which might identify a possible rangeblock here. Mayalld (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Previous checkuser reports (in the cases archived on the old RFCU page) noted that Jvolkblum has often used a Blackberry to edit around the block. --Orlady (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mayalld (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * and are ✅ as Jvolkblum. No accounts on the IPs. To clarify, all except 71.63.117.15 (locates to Texas, but not ThePlanet.com) are Jvolkblum IPs. He frequently edits via Blackberry and I've seen some of his IPs geolocate to RIM in Canada. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Report date January 27 2009, 00:40 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Orlady (talk)

Please reopen. I have added a new registered user and two new IPs. 17epa1 created/recreated several articles previously created by Jvolkblum socks. 69.47.174.178 edited one of those articles and vandalized this page. 68.198.19.132 edited the same article as the other two. --Orlady (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Orlady (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Tiptoety talk 03:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * operating on an open proxy, fits Jvolkblum MO, so blocked. Open proxies hardblocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Report date January 27 2009, 14:29 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Ã¢ÂÂWknight94 (talk)

The usual behavior from banned. EATON.TEE needs to be blocked but one usually leads to a whole drawer so please check for sleepers. Thank you. Ã¢ÂÂWknight94 (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Ã¢ÂÂWknight94 (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * - Probably a open proxy or sock drawer that needs to be blocked. Tiptoety  talk 20:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * is, and no sleepers found. &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Checking just to be sure... Was EATON.TEE checked? Jvolkblum was not the target of this request; that account is ancient history, althogh many of the sockpuppets are very recent. EATON.TEE was the account of interest for this request. --Orlady (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

-- Kanonkas : Talk  21:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Tiptoety talk 21:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * . One of Jvolkblum's ISPs and similar editing location. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Report date February 1 2009, 03:42 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Orlady (talk)

Listing this IP for checkuser attention because it is clearly Jvolkblum, and there are likely to be sleeper accounts nearby. This IP's sole edit was to insert an image that had been uploaded by one of Jvolkblum's sockpuppets into an article that is well-illustrated by other images. (I think that the sockpuppet image probably is a copyvio, but I have not found this particular image elsewhere on the internet.) Note that this IP is portable, so this IP by itself is unlikely to yield much of anything, but by adding it the case, I am recording the info. --Orlady (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Orlady (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC) -- lucasbfr  talk 10:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * From geolocate, this doesn't look like Jvolkblum. I ran a check based on the IP's suspicious edit, no sleepers found. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Report date February 1 2009, 03:42 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Orlady (talk)

Listing this IP for checkuser attention because it is clearly Jvolkblum, and there are likely to be sleeper accounts nearby. This IP's sole edit was to insert an image that had been uploaded by one of Jvolkblum's sockpuppets into an article that is well-illustrated by other images. (I think that the sockpuppet image probably is a copyvio, but I have not found this particular image elsewhere on the internet.) Note that this IP is portable, so this IP by itself is unlikely to yield much of anything, but by adding it the case, I am recording the info. --Orlady (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Orlady (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC) -- lucasbfr  talk 10:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I checked it, and there's only the one edit there. I'm not really sure what else you want from us? --Deskana (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Mayalld (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date February 10 2009, 14:08 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Orlady (talk)

Brand new user SHH2009 is clearly a new incarnation of the banned user Jvolkblum, who has had more than 300 sockpuppets with a history of adding content that is trivial and often plagiarized (see archived history of past SPIs, RFCUs, and SSPs). The new user has been very busy creating new articles about individual neighborhoods and residential subdivisions in New Rochelle, New York. Some of these are re-creations of deleted articles previously created by sockpuppets of Jvolkblum, and all of them are highly consistent with Jvolkblum's past work. Checkuser is requested because history indicates that it is very likely that new sleeper accounts have also been created, and because Jvolkblum uses a diverse variety of IPs to evade the community ban.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I object to anyone immediately shutting down user SHH2009. Whether or not SHH2009 can be associated to articles previously edited by Jvolkblum and linked "socks", the current user appears to me to be a reasonable editor, and there is no vandalism present. Orlady has specifically, previously, challenged Jvolkblum or others caught up in the Jvolkblum stuff, to start a new identity and edit responsibly. (Checking the wording of what I recalled to be her challenge that way, within wt:NRHP, i find the following: "Doncram, if this person wanted to turn over a new leaf and become an honest contributor, I believe that s/he would have no difficulty doing so. This person has no difficulty registering new accounts (often several at one time) and clearly has the intellectual capacity and technical ability to be a good and productive Wikipedia contributor." There's some more there which could support a different interpretation of what Orlady was meaning, other than what I understood at the time, that the user was invited to start over.  Orlady may choose to clarify that she means the person must go through some other processes first, for example.)  This could be such a case and should not be shut down, in my opinion. The user has created articles about neighborhoods with content like this from Victory Park. "Victory Park is a residential area in the city of New Rochelle, in Westchester County, New York. The area is located within the larger Wykagyl section of the city, bordered by the Wykagyl business district on the south, Bonnie Crest on the north, and Ward Acres on the east." The user has correspondence showing on the Talk page (or linked from there) with another user about appropriate templates to use, etc., which seems very reasonable. I'll browse in the other contributions by this user, but I ask for now that this not be hastily prosecuted. doncram (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * Doncram, this account has been "confirmed" to be a sockpuppet of a user who was given a community ban for persistent and egregious abuse. It is way past the time for Jvolkblum to get a second, third, twentieth, 47th, or 199th chance. The user was not banned until after plenty of bad stuff had happened, and the user has persisted in evading the ban. There is plenty of evidence against your theory that this particular sockpuppet might possibly turn out to be an honest and productive contributor. Anyway, what's encyclopedic about articles about the geographic locations of individual residential subdivisions? --Orlady (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Jvolkblum is banned. Any discussion for an unbanning belongs at WP:AN or elsewhere.  —Wknight94 (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Orlady (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

to find any other further sleeper accounts for a prolific block evader. Mayalld (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Blocked and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 00:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * ✅, no other socks. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Report date February 11 2009, 02:01 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets:


 * Evidence submitted by Orlady (talk)

Both of the edits by anonymous IP 67.84.188.221 are fully consistent with banned user Jvolkblum, and the IP is registered to one of the hosts that Jvolkblum has used in the past. Checkuser is requested (as usual) due to the likelihood of sleeper accounts. Orlady (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Orlady (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Tiptoety talk 02:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

. Squat. --Deskana (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

What conclusions? :-) --Deskana (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Report date February 11 2009, 03:06 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets








 * Evidence submitted by Orlady (talk)

The only edits by IP user 75.221.130.3 were to (repeatedly) insert a photo that was uploaded to Commons by a blocked sockpuppet of banned user Jvolklbum. Checkuser is requested because Jvolkblum has often created and used sleeper accounts. (See the extensive history.) --Orlady (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I just added another IP user. 216.244.18.4 has one edit, which is an attack on Wknight94 for pursuing the removal of Jvolkblum material (specifically content added by, whose case on this page from earlier today has already been archived. This is an Earthlink IP (one of Jvolkblum's preferred hosts). This IP user is clearly Jvolkblum. --Orlady (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding a third IP user. 24.213.234.35 has made 3 edits, all to school articles, and all to re-remove content removed earlier by Jvolkblum socks. All of the edit summaries claim that the content is copyvio from the school websites (may be true in part, but it is obviously not completely true; some of the deletions were of content critical of the school, and I personally wrote some of the deleted content), and one of the edit summaries names me as the person who restored the copyvio (Jvolkblum likes to point fingers in that manner). --Orlady (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please also check 194.2.60.21. This user, who "appears" to be in France, has one edit. That edit essentially repeated an edit by one of these other IPs. --Orlady (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding QUADCIN to the report -- clearly a DUCK. --Orlady (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Also adding Erin cali70 -- another DUCK. Recreated two articles that had earlier been created and tended by Jvolkblum socks. (Earlier article was Leland Castle, but Erin cali70's version is deviously named Leland castle.) QUADCIN has subsequently tended one of the articles. --Orlady (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Per past experience with him, 216.244.18.4 is clearly Jvolkblum --Enric Naval (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users


 * I think that is not clear.


 * I think that there are more than one person caught up in the Jvolkblum accusations here now, and there is serious unfairness going on in enforcing the utmost sanctions immediately and with no effective recourse by the users. One or more of the comments seem to me to be from a different observer, commenting on enforcement action against a different editor.  The different observer may well be linked to other identities already caught up in this enforcement program.  There is a lot of frustration out there, I surmise, because the editors and administrators watching New Rochelle area articles have been too quick to make assumptions and accusations and to exert apparently arbitrary power in their enforcement actions.  Orlady has recently commented that she regards anything stated by Jvolkblum as lies.  She and others are quick to delete articles and edits contributed in by anyone they surmise is Jvolkblum.  Combine that with the fact that, in my opinion, Orlady and others have been too trigger-happy to identify any new or not-very-established editor touching any of the New Rochelle area articles, and I believe that there are more than one, perhaps multiple editors caught up in this.  I have commented before that I think it would be extremely difficult for any new editor in the New Rochelle area to start editing in wikipedia without getting slammed with deletions and accusations.  Then, with any reasonable response by the new editor, the person would get labelled as Jvolkblum and blocked.  And I think it would then be likely (and even reasonable) for the user to open a new account and edit more.  Orlady and others are enforcing, angrily, the ban on Jvolkblum, which a new user will not and should not understand as applying to him/her.  Orlady and others' access to get Checkuser checkups on the new user accounts will tend to find links to other accounts caught up in this, but I believe this is not all appropriately attached to Jvolkblum.  I would like to learn more about the complete chain of evidence linking every account which has so far been labelled as Jvolkblum-associated.


 * And, there is effectively no recourse by users caught up in this. If I am correct, every account caught up in this has gotten blocked, and the single page where any one of them is allowed to comment is at User talk:Jvolkblum, where only the original Jvolkblum, probably long gone, might comment if he/she knew he/she could.  To fight false accusations, for a new editor not deeply interested and involved with wikipedia policy and practices, is effectively impossible.  You would need a lawyer, or a battery of them.  doncram (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The findings I have posted for Jvolkblum CU requests are based on my own recollection of Jvolkblum ISPs/IPs/user agents/locations. Although I myself have been suspicious of the sheer quantity of sockpuppets and access to IPs that Jvolkblum has, I believe that all accounts I have listed in my findings have engaged in abusive sockpuppetry, either as Jvolkblum or possibly (I'm not indicating any doubt to my findings, just offering an alternative explanation) another sockmaster. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheap anonymizing programs are easy to come by. Incidentally, I'm not sure what Doncram is still upset about since the content is no longer getting deleted anyway.  Jvolkblum is effectively no longer banned - he's merely in an unusual situation where he has to change IDs from time to time.  It's just a minor inconvenience.  —Wknight94 (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Nishkid64, for acknowledging possibility that more than one user may be caught up in this. I believe that to be the case.  And, I believe that other users may have been treated extremely unfairly, in effect, due to the zeal and anger expressed in their persecution, due in turn to misunderstanding on the part of editors who took it upon themselves to follow the New Rochelle area articles and these users.  W asserts here that it has been a mere inconvenience to "Jvolkblum";  I think that is unfair.   I think the treatment has been inhumane, as if the persons involved have been defined (often at first unfairly) as being less than human beings, and it really smells rotten to me.  I am, as far as i know, the only experienced wikipedia editor who has been taking some of their concerns seriously.  It is a serious inconvenience for me to begin to address one of the seeming wrongs wrought by self-appointed enforcing angels involved here, that of allowing wikipedia to cover the neighborhoods of New Rochelle, that the person trying to raise the legitimate issue of covering the neighborhoods gets blocked entirely. doncram (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Please note QUADCIN's assertion at User talk:QUADCIN that QUADCIN is not Jvolkblum and is not banned. Orlady's and others' repeated citation of DUCKness is getting irritating. These look like frustrated, overly prosecuted relative newbies to wikipedia, to me, that is what is DUCK-like here. They have somewhat long-running experiences now, but are stunted in their experience of what it can mean to contribute to wikipedia, because they are repeatedly throttled and labelled, unfairly as liars and thieves and so on, because of what is appearing to me to be some sloppiness in detective work and some poor judgment on the part of wikipedia enforcers involved here previously. Can someone tell me, what is the forum to request a check on the checkusers' series of checks here, which have linked, I think erroneously, all of these users in one monolithic glob? doncram (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Orlady (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Lets make doubly sure that they are not copyvios before proceeding further on this. See if someone can't ask this user for the relevant sites, and or refer him/her to OTRS. Once we are sure these are not copyvios, we can proceed with blocking all activity. ——  nix eagle email me 14:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The anon user claims they are copyvios of the school websites. It should be very easy to check the school websites. However, part of Jvolkblum's modus operandi as a long-term disruptor of Wikipedia is to make us distrust one another by making false accusations. Furthermore, I'm 100% sure that (contrary to one of the edit summaries) content about sexual abuse by a former head of school was not a copyvio of the school website. --Orlady (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do make sure there are no copyvios please. That is effort worth taking. Remove what is a copyvio. ——  nix eagle email me 15:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, what is a checkuser going to do with the 3 IPs? I don't think checkuser is needed here. If it is, please explain why you think it will be... we already know these IPs are Jvolkblum based on behavior and the DUCK test. ——  nix eagle email me 14:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Around the time that the last Jvolkblum SSP case (Jolkblum 18) got archived, I was advised to list future cases at RFCU instead of SSP. (This was before the two processes got merged.) It's generally clear who we are dealing with (WP:DUCK), so there's no need for a long review of the behavioral evidence. However, the IPs used by Jvolkblum often are associated with additional sleeper accounts, so once a sock is spotted, checkuser is helpful for identifying additional socks. The fact that a scan of the IPs used in any 24-hour period did not turn up any sleepers does not mean that the next scan will not turn up some sleepers. Also, Jvolkblum has a propensity for using open proxies, and checking of his IPs has helped to identify and block a number of open proxies. --Orlady (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, if checkusers don't get to it, I'll do open proxy checks in a bit. ——  nix eagle email me 15:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * . No sleepers found, one open proxy blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please check newly added IP. --Orlady (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No sleepers found, open proxy blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please also scan around the newly added QUADCIN and Erin cali70. --Orlady (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Erin cali70 is ❌.
 * QUADCIN is based on geographical similarity, but since Jvolkblum seems to use many different ISPs, it would be hard to give any kind of certainty based on IP information anyway. Dominic·t 20:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, QUADCIN looks like a WP:DUCK, based on edit patterns. I retract my previous comments on Erin cali70; it's nice to think that an honest person is working in this area.
 * I'm adding two more IPs to this case: 69.86.223.174 and 64.255.180.25. They have been engaged in editing and commenting on Rochelle Heights; I think both are Jvolkblum, based on their comments and WHOIS data. As with others listed here, the possibility of sleepers exists. --Orlady (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No accounts found on those IPs. Dominic·t 02:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 *  Syn  ergy 02:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Report date February 23 2009, 05:21 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets



More IPs:

More registered users


 * Additional sockpuppets (qst March)




 * Evidence submitted by Orlady (talk)

All of these users appear to be banned user Jvolkblum evading the ban. Checkuser is requested due to the likelihood of open proxies and the likelihood of sleeper accounts nearby.

Petermax1 and JeanineHolbrook appeared as brand-new users on the same day (although they registered 2 days apart, they edited in sequence, with JeanineHolbrook stopping 5 minutes before Petermax1 registered and started editing) and each created a couple of articles on New Rochelle topics of the type that have long interested banned user Jvolkblum and his socks. The IPs (with whois from diverse geographic locations, suggesting open proxies) have showed up to edit these articles (in particular, (1) adding images previously uploaded to Commons by Jvolkblum socks and suspected socks and (2) removing orphan tags). Along they way they have made other edits to articles that Jvolkblum has touched in the past, including a few edits by 201.133.184.33 to articles about Memphis topics that Jvolkblum has edited in the past, apparently to annoy me because I am from Tennessee, and this edit by 208.111.34.143 that reverted my deletion (a few hours earlier) from Suburb of a Jvolkblum image that a now-blocked proxy had added several weeks ago. Who but Jvolkblum would be so carefully watching this particular portfolio of articles? --Orlady (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Note: 201.133.184.33 is already a blocked proxy, as of 18 February. --Orlady (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Umm, that would be you Orlady. It is apparent that your interests lie in monitoring and tracking this "portfolio of articles". What is most perplexing is your insistence on continuing this counterproductive activity through attacking every last user and every last edit. Your claims of wrongdoings against a particular banned user might indeed have merit but they certainly dont apply to the myriad of perfectly acceptable edits that you incessantly target. Your arguments are nothing more than a reflection of a neurotic personality . . . "this users edited once... this user edited from a strange location...this users name was clearly created as an personal attack on me & where I am from blahblahblah. . . adding yet another IP.... heres yet another ip, this user made one edit to such and such article, a jvockblum favorite. . a pet article of a banned user".  You create a dynamic of confrontation and animosity which feeds on the ill-will and negativity that you so readily provide. Why not back off perhaps? or try a more civil approach that might promote effective dialogue?? It will most assuredly be welcomed by others but it is entirely your choice. --67.149.10.142 (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I just added MagdaOakewoman to this report. This user registered within the last hour, has a user name that appears to refer to my user name (compare "Oakewoman" to my user name "Orlady", which is short for "Oak Ridge lady") and has a total of four edits, all to pages that have nothing in common other than that I touched them recently (including re-inserting that image in Suburb). I can't imagine who but Jvolkblum would follow me around in that manner. --Orlady (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record: This isolated edit from Kinko's IP 170.170.59.139 also seems likely to be the same person. --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 *  You are pointing out a new ip address in which a user made one edit that you have decided is the banned user you are after. Where is the connection or proof? and what exactly is meant by the opening statement "for the record"?? --67.149.10.142 (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding 94.76.196.57 to this report. This IP edited Template:New Rochelle, New York (a template frequently edited by Jvolkblum socks, but not exclusively by socks) to list several new articles. Based on the geographic info from whois and the previous edits from this IP, I think this might be an open proxy. --Orlady (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the geographic info from whois that you are basing your argument on?? the same house? building? street? neighborhood? city? region? --67.149.10.142 (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

More IPs: I am adding 68.173.87.68 to the report. This is a New York RoadRunner account (not likely to be an open proxy) that has been used for just 4 edits, three to pages related to New Rochelle and one to a Sarah Lawrence College page (these are Jvolkblum's trademark interests), including two removals of orphan templates (consistent with several other users on this report). --Orlady (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "For the record" - numerous articles have recently been auto-tagged as "orphans". Were any of these removals of orphan templates vandalism or are users responding to the tags (which serve the purpose of attracting individual attention to specified issues in need of resoultion), working to rectify and address the issue? --67.149.10.142 (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding Yonkinator to this case. This brand new user (who registered first at Commons) wasted no time in uploading new images at Commons and adding content to several of the New Rochelle articles, as well as bestowing praise upon Doncram and MagdaOakewoman. (The barnstar awarded to Doncram was uploaded to Commons just a few minutes earlier.) Clearly not a genuine newbie; needs to be included in checkuser scan. --Orlady (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This probably is extraneous while the checkuser process is ongoing, but I'm adding another IP, as MagdeOakewoman edited logged-out from 88.208.236.145 at Talk:Knoxville, Tennessee. --Orlady (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC) That IP has previously been suggested to be connected with User:Advocate4us and possibly User:Audreetucker, both of whom have attacked me for edits unrelated to the Jvolkblum situation. (Affected articles were Percival Davis and Canterbury University (Seychelles)). --Orlady (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like EERVR.Jr needs to be factored into this case and MagdaOakewoman split off from it, based on results reported at Sockpuppet investigations/MagdaOakewoman. --Orlady (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Further evidence submitted (1st March) by Orlady (talk)

All of these users have edit patterns similar to the banned user and prolific sockpuppeteer Jvolkblum.

Huskysker is clearly not true newbie. This account's first contribution was to create a new article, fully developed, complete with a formatted infobox. The topic of that article is one of the New Rochelle-related geographic topics about which Jvolkblum has repeatedly attempted to create articles, but this user "conveniently" found a title that did not match a previously-deleted article.

Like Huskysker, Smoosherton is no newbie and already was blocked as a result of the previous report. This user's only contribution was creation of a fully developed article about a New Rochelle topic (again, under a different title than the previous versions added by Jvolkblum socks), although this user did not create an infobox.

74.9.216.50 appears to be located in Florida (open proxy?) but has shown up here solely to add to New Rochelle articles, including enhancements to Huskysker's and Smoosherton's creations.

38.99.170.170 and 38.99.170.171 are presumably the same user, apparently in Toronto, but with a single-minded focus on improving articles about New Rochelle, including the article on Davenport's Neck contributed by Smoosherton. (I have requested speedy deletion of that article.)

81.2.96.158 appears to be located in the UK (open proxy?) but has focused solely on enhancing articles on New Rochelle topics.

There are likely to be additional socks and sleepers in the drawer right now. -- Orlady, March 1, 2009

Adding another one. MaryEastVill is a new user who has recreated several articles (some of them under new names) that have been created by past Jvolkblum socks and deleted(several articles about tiny islands in Long Island Sound, within the New Rochelle city limits; also Sheldrake Lake). It would be nice to think that this is a new user who just happens to be interested in New Rochelle's natural areas and isn't using multiple accounts, but the similarity in subject matter and article content is too large for me to assume that this is a coincidence. --Orlady (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding yet another: BoseJose. This user is not as sophisticated in some respects as the typical Jvolkblum sock (notably, the images this user uploaded at Commons were clearly identified as being from the find-a-grave website, rather than having their sources disguised -- I've requested speedy deletion at Commons as copyvios), but the user shares Jvolkblum's interest in New Rochelle topics (in this case, cemeteries) and has protested "orphan" templates using the same language as was used by some of last week's socks. (Also listing Newtontower, who created one of the articles that BoseJose edited. Newtontower is already blocked as a Jvolkblum sock -- apparently as a result of checkuser data, but has not been tagged yet.) --Orlady (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding another IP: 38.99.170.163 is in the same IP cluster as several other Toronto-based IPs in this report. This IP's only edits were the addition of three Commons images (only two of which had been uploaded to Commons by confirmed or suspected Jvolkblum socks), an infobox, and some large chunks of text (mostly unsourced; there is one citation to one of the types of offline sources favored by Jvolkblum) to Glen Island Park (New Rochelle, New York). --Orlady (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding yet another IP: 60.34.10.201 is apparently located in Japan, and made several edits to New Rochelle articles, including a couple of the cemetery articles created by suspected socks identified in this report. Another open proxy? --Orlady (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Back again to add two more IPs, both on the same host in Paris, France (part of the United Nations of IP users who apparently are fascinated by trivial details about residential neighborhoods in New Rochelle, New York): 88.191.221.157 has five edits, all to articles about New Rochelle neighborhoods, and the two most recent edits (in the same time period as the edits by the other IP) were primarily to add images (previously uploaded to Commons by a Jvolkblum sock) to New Rochelle neighborhood articles. --Orlady (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Also adding 208.120.15.183 -- an EarthLink IP with a focus on New Rochelle. This series of edits (to an article that has been created and recreated under various names by confirmed or suspected Jvolkblum socks) is formatted like many of Jvolkblum's contributions. --Orlady (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

What a very strange over-reaction, as I've only made some minor grammatical and punctuation edits, here and there. This seems a wee bit paranoid, but I'm sure that this will all be sorted out. Have a nice day, Orlady!MagdaOakewoman (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That comment signed by MagdaOkewwoman sounds like taunting. To me, it just seems mean and not helpful.  I assume that the several accounts and IP addresses are the same person, who will be linked to previous accounts caught up in the Jvolkblum case such as User:Erin cali70, whether or not this is the same person as the original Jvockblum.  I think i need to comment here, because I have supported and perhaps emboldened this person.  I think i should clarify that, though i agree with some of this person's perspective on some past stuff (like how chafing it can be to be targeted by a long campaign seemingly against New Rochelle area articles by persons who seem actually to dislike the area), I don't like to see the person expanding edit warring into new areas, and I am somewhat disappointed.  I have offered to open an unban case so that the person could edit New Rochelle area and other articles under an amnesty-protected wikipedia account.  The person may pre-judge that I could not succeed in getting such an unban, perhaps, but I would still like to try (although i need to have some contact with that person, some indication of interest, in order to do so).  It undermines that potential case if the person can't stop himself from harassing Orlady now, which is what some of this now appears to be.  Could we pursue some kind of amnesty / unban instead of expanding edit warring, please. doncram (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, but no. You people are behaving very peculiarly - talk about making a big deal out of nothing(?) My edits are only involving punctuation and grammatical tweaks (and very minimal ones). As for this Jvockblum, research will prove that we're not associated with each other.  What is threatening you two so much? Is it such a big deal for someone new to start contributing? It's not as if I'm drastically changing or removing content. Or am I not allowed to even touch anything that you have?  A professor I knew said years ago that identity confusion is one of the serious problems encountered in here. I hate to automatically be reviled due to someone else's behavior.  Anyway, I've said my piece. Admin can review my edits to see if they're so "horrible" and "destructive". If correcting poor sentence structure is wrong, I will join the company of all writing professionals.MagdaOakewoman (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, your edit contributions as MagdaOakewoman and your writing here suggest some experience and do not suggest that you are a new editor, unless you mean in some non-standard way that you are a new editor because you are a new person this week, or something like that. I agree that no one should be reviled due to someone else's behavior, and I even would like to think we can turn over a new leaf and be new persons sometimes.  No one else said anything about edits being 'horrible' or 'destructive' as far as I know. doncram (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In each and every cirumstance related to this ongoing conflict, Orlady is directly involved. Could it be that her actions do nothing more than provoke a growing number of individuals???  --67.149.10.142 (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The anonymous IP contributor has no edits outside of this page and appears (based on whois) to be Located in Naperville, Illinois. --Orlady (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The lack of a response from Orlady is reflective of this users attitude towards dialogue and/or resolution. It is this attitude that perpetuates the negativity and "controversy" that surrounds a select grouping of articles on this site. Note that Orlady has not provided any sort of evidence in support of vandalism ort wrongdoing on the part of these editors. She has merely provided a various assortment of user names, IP addresses and locations of origins for those addresses, yet has done so under the guise that unregistered users (anonymous) are fundamentally less valid than all others. It is the sites policy that contributors do not have to be registered to edit or add to the encyclopedia. The policy emphasises that unregistered users may be tracked according to their IP address in relation to problematic behavior such as vandalism on the site. I see no example of vandalism or malicious editing anywhere within this report. It exists to serves the personal interests of user Orlady and is built entirely upon claims of sockpuppetry that are the true hallmark of Orlady (ie. see users edit history for the past year for backup).--24.215.173.70 (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)   — 24.215.173.70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I must say that this is interesting me, as I was dragged into this unwillingly. I see a pattern here: Orlady continues to report one person after another. I am in no way attempting to be rude, but shouldn't politeness be demanded of everyone? And when do we cross over from defense to offense? And when does it become abuse? Does such obsessing over others constitute harassment? What did this unfortunate Jvolkblum do? It can't be too bad, or I wouldn't have been accused (by Orlady) of being highly disruptive and "vandalising" when I was only making grammatical and punctuation changes. I also don't understand the "clerk" who has blocked some people (see below). '''Do they block people for doing something awful like posting bad language or deleting a page or do they block them because Orlady complains enough about them? I am dead serious: I don't understand. HELP!''' MagdaOakewoman (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] A community ban was imposed on Jvolkblum after a diverse and egregious series of disruptive actions over an extended period. This ban and Jvolkblum's continued use of open proxies, creation of sockpuppets, and other actions to evade the ban are sufficient basis for blocking accounts associated with this user and reverting their edits. --Orlady (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reported Orlady for sockpuppetry herself, and I believe that I am completely correct. Since many of you have been lumped in there with so many of us other victims, I figured I'd post the information here where we all can view it. It's at. As I state there, her immediate and extreme attacks on me spurred me to do some investigating of my own. I found the overreactions peculiar. I am sorry that she wants to be combative, but I want to be allowed to participate without being perpetually and unnecessarily attacked when all I'm doing is what everyone else is doing. Well - I'm doing even less, as the edits are minor. I don't want trouble, I didn't start the trouble, but I'm hoping that this will put an end to it. MagdaOakewoman (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Orlady (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests
 * at least one of the alleged socks is clearly not a new user, and CU is needed to clean out the drawer. Mayalld (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * : 208.111.34.143, 148.244.98.137 and 94.76.196.57 are open proxies and have been blocked. The other two aren't open, however. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 19:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * FT2 (Talk 14:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Despite the strenuous denials, it is clear that MagdaOakewoman is socking, but that she isn't a sock of this user. Her attempt to accuse her accuser fell flat on its face, and unless anything looks particularly interesting to FT2, I think this rather long and rambling attempt by a pupeteer to filibuster has probably reached its natural conclusion. Mayalld (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Interim update (Note: some of these appear on older checks and should be looked for at Sockpuppet investigations/Jvolkblum/Archive):
 * ,, , , and  ✅ as the same user.
 * is fairly to be.
 * Fairly also that  is  and also.
 * Still reviewing. FT2 (Talk 15:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Open proxies have been blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * anything further to add? Mayalld (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * From the most recent request, the following are ✅:


 *  Syn  ergy 13:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Report date March 20 2009, 18:55 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets










 * Evidence submitted by Orlady (talk)

Consistent with past behavior by Jvokblum socks, as soon as one case is closed, new socks appear.

The two IP users 88.191.221.159 and 88.191.221.165 appear to be in Paris, France (like some IPs in the previous Jvolkblum report), but have a focus on very local topics related to New Rochelle, New York. They have, in effect, admitted to being one or more of the sockpuppets blocked in the previous Jvolkblum report. All edits by 88.191.221.165 are on Doncram's user talk page, complaining that the user's registered account was unfairly blocked for sockpuppetry, claiming harassment and discrimination by Orlady (that's me), and asking Doncram to go to bat for him/her against the alleged unfair treatment. User 88.191.221.159 has three recent edits, two of which were related to the New Rochelle template (originally created by a Jvolkblum sock and actively maintained by other socks) and the third of which was another entreaty to Doncram, indicated as being from the same user as the earlier pleas.

Commons user TOWNGOWN (not registered here) is clearly the same person as these two IPs. This user uploaded and edited, for which 88.191.221.159 claims credit.

Other sleepers are likely, based on past history.

ADDED: Adding 88.191.222.18, another IP being used in the conversation on Doncram's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

ADDED: IP user (most recently ), which IP I just added to this case) has been continuing to post on Doncram's user page (this conversation), acknowledging him/herself to have created several sock accounts in this case (including User:SHH2009, User:QUADCIN, and User:EATON.TEE), but claiming to have done this only as a result of having been falsely accused of being Jvolkblum. The user also has made numerous edits to several New Rochelle articles within the last 12 hours. Contrary to these disclaimers, the most recent edits (evident in this set of diffs) to List of New Rochelle neighborhoods look remarkably like my recollection of the work of User:DVac525 (who was blocked as a sock of deleted user User:DJVac, but who I have long thought was related to the "Jvolkblum" sock collection) and User:FlanneryFamily (the first "Jvolkblum sock" that I ever interacted with), for example, as evident in the very first version and this somewhat later old version of City School District of New Rochelle (which version was the result of many edits by FlanneryFamily and a variety of IPs over a period of a few weeks in February and March 2008). --Orlady (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I just added new user User:Umbarella to the case, based on duck-like edit activity. This user's 3 edits all have been to tweak minor historical details in articles about New Rochelle topics. Sigh... --Orlady (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Just now I added to the report. This anonymous user, who appears to be in Santiago, Chile, has made one edit, restoring a previously deleted Jvolkblum-ish paragraph to New Rochelle, New York. Since I reject the theory that the entire world is filled with people eager to edit articles about New Rochelle, I think it likely that this one is another open proxy. --Orlady (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am adding to this case. This account's sole contribution is a tirade against me (related to my pursuit of Jvolkblum sockpuppets) on another user's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Now Onesang has 3 edits, including this reversion of my reversion of an edit by confirmed sock Yonkinator, with an edit summary that states "reverted edit made purely out of spite." I have no doubt that this is Jvolkblum. Editorial comment: Allowing banned users to continue to create new sockpuppet accounts (like the Onesang account) and claim to be the innocent victims when honest people are trying to enforce Wikipedia policy renders that policy useless -- and it is fomenting additional disruption in the community, in the form of continued efforts by "good Wikipedians" (particularly by Doncram and now by DoxTxob) to paint the socks as innocent victims. --Orlady (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding 201.27.6.67 to this report. This anonymous user, apparently in Brazil, made detailed edits to two articles about New Rochelle historic buildings and edited a couple of other topics related to suburban parts of the New York City metro area, before this strange posting on WP:AIV that stated "I am an open proxy. I am used by User:Jvolkblum." This is likely to be some sort of red-herring hoax (it is an open proxy, and has been blocked as such, but it may not be Jvolkblum), but I figured it should be documented here in case the info is useful to the checkusers. --Orlady (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC) THIS WAS NOT JVOLKBLUM, but has been confirmed (via e-mail to me, from a known sender) to have been a hoax. --Orlady (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding 201.252.50.66 to the report. This anonymous user, apparently in Argentina, posted on DoxTxob's talk page to complain about me, particularly about my edit to an article about an historic building in New Rochelle. This is presumably another open proxy. --Orlady (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional information: Now has posted on his own talk page (this diff). In that message, Jvolkblum claims (in effect) to be an innocent victim of Wikipedia's efforts to control the sockpuppet vandalism associated with his username (which apparently is closely related to his real name). However, I note that the message, including insinuations against me, is similar (in both style and content) to assertions insinuations that Jvolkblum and various accounts labeled or suspected as socks have made in the past, including insinuations Jvolkblum directed at HMishkoff a year ago (old version of Jvolkblum's talk page, that confirmed sock User:James Conoco directed at User:BlueAzure in July 2008 (on Giggy's talk page), and that various socks and suspected socks have directed at Wknight94 and me more recently (examples include this anonymous IP comment about Wknight94 on Doncram's talk page and this statement about me, by Onesang, on Doncram's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I am adding 69.86.223.253 to the report to alert checkusers to the fact that the two recent edits on this Earthlink IP are likely to be the work of Jvolkblum. One edit was to replace a "Westchester County" category with a "New Rochelle" category; that was a valid edit, and a type of edit that Jvolkblum socks have often made. The other edit was to WVOX, an article that was created by a Jvolkblum sock (Abbeyclose, who was identified and recorded as blocked by Nishkid64 on 23 January) as a copyvio of the radio station's website and which I completely rewrote. The anon edit to the WVOX article removed a bit of third-party sourced content and replaced it with some words (sourced to the website) that I had removed from the original article; that is typical of numerous "Jvolkblum" edits I have seen. Note that Wknight94 has added Giftygrl, Diggs100, and a couple of other IPs to this case. --Orlady (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

I oppose using CheckUser resources to hunt down and block the user who has openly posted on my Talk page. I am indeed preparing a Community Unban case, which I currently believe is the proper forum to secure approval for allowing this user one open account to edit from. I tend to believe the user that he/she is not the original Jvolkblum and hence has never been banned (and even if is established that the person is the original Jvolkblum I would still argue for unban), and I will make other arguments in the Unban case. It is somewhat complicated to write an Unban proposal, which I have never done, and this case is complicated, so I am not yet ready to make a date commitment by which date I will have opened the proposal. Among other complications, I have to consider how much evidence I need to provide on the actions of Orlady, who has been zealous, hard-working, and well-meaning but misguided, in my view. I believe that Orlady and others have effectively treated this user (and others caught up in this mess) very badly. Orlady, presumably, will differ.

It happens that with my discussion the user seems more emboldened and interested in editing the New Rochelle area articles right now, which may be stressful for Orlady, but the edits seem generally harmless. No need for heavy duty action, in my view. Also happening just now are 5 inappropriate (in my view) Speedy deletion requests on New Rochelle articles, put in by Orlady. Orlady also is appearing to be energized by the user communications with me. I think this can all wait to be discussed in an Unban case now. Blocking more accounts will likely just prod the user into creating new ones, and I personally would support the user's technically illegal decision to proceed in that way. Honestly I think wp:IAR applies at this point for the user who has been badly treated.

If a checkuser wants to intervene, perhaps it would be helpful to focus upon separating this set of account vs. other sets of accounts within the Jvolkblum mess. It would be useful to know which subset seem to be one user, separate from other users caught up in this. As the user says at my Talk page, the user him/herself does not know all of the accounts he/she has used, though identifies some. doncram (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Doncram, as I understand the situation, two important reasons for requesting that a checkuser look at these IPs are (1) the possibility that these are open proxies being used abusively and (2) the possibility that the sockpuppeteer has created additional registered accounts. --Orlady (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * UPDATE to CheckUser: I am preparing an Unban proposal which should, hopefully, render this case moot, and/or change the nature of the checkuser investigations that would be helpful (for parties judging in the Unban).  I will post it within 48 hours from now.  By the way, the currently active user has been, for the most part cooperating and using mainly one 68.143 I.P. address recently to communicate at my Talk page and otherwise, in response to my request that he/she use just one/fewer accounts if possible to save work here. doncram (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Further update: I'll need another 24 hours. doncram (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I opened an Unban request, which also includes a ban request on Orlady, at Administrators' noticeboard doncram (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I demand that the deleted contributions of recently banned User:Umbarella be made public here immediately. The three contributions that are accessible to every user seem to be a reasonable contributions to Wikipedia, and they have not been reverted. The deleted contributions are only accessible to administrators, it seems. This is wrong, very wrong. Every user should be able to make their own judgement whether the contributions are disturbing or not. The way it is presented here I get the impression that important information regarding the case is only accessible to a small group of Wikipedians. I am a non-adin user who is just following the case and the way it is presented, I get ... well, let's say ... I might get the idea that this is more a case of paranoia than a case of disrupting Wikipedia. There is no secret police at Wikipedia and there is no reason to keep this important information from the community of editors.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia everyone can edit, this is one of the key points of the project. If one user is banned from this project, every other user has the right to know why this was. Duck-like behaviour is not convincing enough information for me to accept a user ban. Every admin who willingly and knowingly withholds information from the Wikipedia community in order to conceal facts should resign, and if he or she does not, be removed from that position. Such behaviour is antisocial, counterproductive, elitist and should be condemned on Wikipedia, because it is a leap backwards instead of forwards. doxTxob \ talk 00:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As near as I can tell, Umbarella has no deleted contributions and has not been blocked. The only banned user associated with this case is the person behind User:Jvolkblum; the hundreds of sockpuppets used by that person are blocked, not banned. At the time that I added Umbarella to this report in order to request checkuser on the account, there were only 3 edits in the user's contributions list; apparently there have been no edits since then. I don't know whether the checkuser process has been done; I may never know, as many details of checkuser are kept confidential to protect people's privacy.


 * I don't know whether Umbarella is a Jvolkblum sock, but because many of the accounts that have been confirmed to be socks of Jvolkblum had very similar contributions (both in quantity and kind), I think it is highly likely and I believe that a checkuser is appropriate.


 * As for the reasons why Jvolkblum is banned, see the discussion that led to the ban. If you need to see more after that, the 18 SSP cases, 15 checkuser cases, and the 11 previous SPI cases are all accessible in archives linked from Jvolkblum's user page, and the confirmed sockpuppets are all neatly categorized. --Orlady (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that the standard for application of intrusive checkuser investigations should be raised to require evidence of wrong-doing. There is no evidence of wrong-doing by Umbarella.  The three edits are fine.  Two of them add references.  I further believe that the past history here of linking accounts to the original banned user has gone far wrong.  It has erroneously linked in multiple different persons, I believe.  So, while it is likely that a checkuser investigation could show an association between Umbarella and one or more accounts that have been previously linked, I think it is highly doubtful that the investigation could show linkage to the original Person A, who was banned.  Others erroneously linked in have not been banned by the community, and their edits should be welcomed not persecuted.
 * The Unban proposal that i made was closed on March 27. I have just now reopened discussion at Administrators' noticeboard. doncram (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Orlady, you know that I appreciate your many useful contributions to Wikipedia. In this case you are very wrong. Above, you accuse User:Umbarella of "duck-like" activities and "tweaking" historic details of New Rochelle related articles and nothing else but some IP address shared with someone else who had disrupted Wikkipedia in the past. The edits are proper and I must tell you that you are very wrong and unfair to even mention this user on this page in this context.


 * Any user, every user, should be judged by the quality of their edits and that ONLY! The edits made by user Umbarella are not worse than some of my edits or some of yours. You can not know under which circumstances it might happen that some users share an IP address. Maybe they are at the same school, go to the same McDonalds and share that wireless hot spot. If a certain account is qualified by proper and constructive edits and no disruptive activities, even if it is only three edits, that account has a right to stay and be welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, from whatever IP that account is operated from. Everything else is unfair, is unreasonable and - in my humble opinion - it casts a shadow on your otherwise very intelligent and valuable additions to Wikipedia and your reasoning skills.


 * I have read many of the accusations against users in this case and we have discussed the edits of User:MagdaWoman, or something like this on my talk page, too. I could not see any disruptive edits from that user either, but still you pursued a ban, block or whatever against that user account. This is not the way to go and in my opinion your activities to get these accounts banned or blocked are keeping productive editors to Wikipedia from editing. This is not the way Wikipedia works and this is not the way to improve Wikipedia. This criticism is also pointed at admins and checkusers who just go by IP numbers to "confirm" a "suspicion". A "suspicion" based on an IP number is not enough!


 * I am from Germany and in some dark times some seventyfive years ago in that country, people were put in prison camps just because they were under the "suspicion", in these dark times suspicion was enough. There are example of this in the present U.S. of A., too, where suspicion is enough to imprison people and get you killed. A suspicion, and I feel very, very strongly about this, is not enough to "convict" someone. Bring proof on the table for wrongdoing and let the community decide. Here, a suspicion is uttered and a few checkusers and admins confirm an IP number and the user is put in the Wiki camp. That is very, very wrong and it leads the Wikipeadia community in a direction that we will all regret. "In dubio pro reo" is a latin judicial phrase, it means that if there is any doubt about the guilt, the judge should decide in favor of the person suspected, just to avoid wrongly convicting a person who is free of guilt.


 * We are all trying to work together to make Wikipedia a source of knowledge that people can rely on and that provides a certain quality of information. It still is, and should always be, an encyclopedia everyone can edit. Only if a disruptive activity to the project can be detected, a ban can be considered for an account. For User:Umbarella, this is not the case, Orlady. For this reason I support the unban/unblock of this user and strongly recommend that other accounts who edit New Rochelle articles (or other articles) are only banned or blocked if destructive activities emerge from that account.


 * Orlady, why don't you just drop this pursuit of sockpuppets, meatpuppets and other creatures in this obscure user Jolkblum "case" and let the things go ahead? I am convinced that your reasoning here does not help to improve of Wikipedia. It sometimes takes courage to admit that you were wrong, and in this case your are. You would possibly make a good admin, if you could cool your temper down and accuse only when there is a good reason to accuse. Take care and happy editing, doxTxob \ talk 03:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * DoxTxob, the last time I slacked off on my tracking of Jvolkblum socks, the result (about 6 months ago) was a burdensome task for the checkusers, leading to the blocking of about 66 sockpuppet accounts. Additionally, a lot of articles that these and other socks edited still have not been thoroughly vetted to separate the solid content from the unverifiable cruft. I would far rather prevent this stuff from being created -- and get it deleted as soon as it shows up -- than ask volunteers to expend precious time sorting through it. If these topics are notable, sooner or later someone honest will create solid articles about them, but the Jvolkblum cruft probably makes it harder (not easier) for true newbies to contribute content on these topics. --Orlady (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree completely with your view. User accounts from which no harmful edits emerged are banned or blocked. This is random exclusion of valuable users from the community by thight knit a group of editors of whom I more and more get the impression that they share a case of paranoia. This is like burning books. This is not a positive contribution to Wikipedia. In my opinion, you should stay out of this matter and mind your business elsewhere on Wikipedia. I reverted one of your deletions in a New Rochelle article, in your edit summary you asked "Why would a user from Santiago care about this?". I ask you "Why would a user from Oak Ridge TN care about this?". Stay out of this, you actions disrupt Wikipedia! doxTxob \ talk 19:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the sarcasm of my comment about the user from Santiago. I was trying (unsuccessfully, I see) to make a joke about the fact that a veritable United Nations of anonymous IPs edits articles about New Rochelle and other topics of interest to Jvolkblum -- I assume that these are open proxies or anonymizers. It is inconceivable to me that people in diverse world locations (places like Chile, Latvia, Malaysia, Mexico, and other locations from which isolated anonymous edits occur) are leaping at the opportunity to improve the New Rochelle articles by edits such as restoring the unsourced puffery "The 1960s television hit The Dick Van Dyke Show popularized New Rochelle suburban life as an American ideal" to the lead section of New Rochelle, New York. That paragraph of unsourced puffery that I deleted (twice) and that you restored had been in the article for over a year, beginning with this unsourced anonymous addition and this unsourced addition by FlanneryFamily, although it was removed at least once by an admin who stopped by to do some cleanup. As for why I care, I am personally offended to see this continuing abuse of Wikipedia. By the way, if you also have become interested in improving the New Rochelle article, I believe that much of the "History" section is a copyvio of pages such as http://www.newrochelleny.com/19.asp from the "History" sections of the New Rochelle city website; it needs to be rewritten or deleted. --Orlady (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick note that I added a few more (already blocked) accounts to the list for additional data. Moreover, the original account has come back to life for the first time in around a year. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Orlady (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Should be checked again. ——  nix eagle email me 19:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Can someone provide some known sockpuppet accounts for me to check against? The main account is stale and checking the IPs on their own is unlikely to prove anything unless I have a baseline for comparison. --Deskana (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Check the archive. There are 11 SPI reports from earlier this year, including numerous IPs and more than a dozen registered accounts. Prior to that, I recall that there were 15 RFCU cases and 18 SSP cases, including many more users and IPs. --Orlady (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * DediBox is a hosting service. I hardblocked 88.191.0.0/16. -- lucasbfr  talk 08:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Update - more accounts have been added above and the main account has become active since the most recent checkuser activity. Thank you.  —Wknight94 (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there is much we can so right now. We should block the proxies, but I have checked all the accounts and IPs listed and found no new accounts on them. Dominic·t 20:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing left to do. Tiptoety talk 20:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by Wknight94

 * Long-banned has been active lately so a check for sleepers is in order.  This may be a waste of time since he makes heavy use of open proxies (Nishkid64 blocked about 150 of them last time) but anything that can be found will be helpful.  Thanks.   Wknight94  talk  13:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Wknight94, I assumed you wanted to file a request for CheckUser? Tiptoety talk 18:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, yes. Did I do something wrong?  Those two boxes on WP:SPI confuse me...   Thanks.   Wknight94  talk  19:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The box on the right is the one you want. No issues though; I'll do it for you. NW ( Talk ) 19:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * I have blocked a few proxies that I found. A range block doesn't seem possible for the non-proxy IPs. Unblocked accounts that are ✅ are SHwater, Jeffy888, and Opti3rd. Dominic·t 08:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

All accounts tagged. MuZemike 06:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Orlady
There has been some new activity consistent with the old "duck" patterns. Most or all of the contributions of concern from these three users have been deleted (see deleted contributions histories for all users) and the registered user accounts are now blocked. Since the likelihood exists that there are open proxies involved or other as-yet-undetected sleepers associated with this new activity, I am asking for a checkuser to look at these users and their neighborhoods.

In addition, note that OTRS ticket 2009103110013893 appears to have come from the same source, apparently either to advertise a newly created website or to endow that website with some credibility. See this message for some notes and comments regarding the OTRS ticket. Orlady (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Orlady (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * NW ( Talk ) 01:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The following accounts are ✅ as being socks of ;




 * - A l is o n  ❤ 01:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Orlady
New duck-like behavior related to notable people who may or may not have some connection with New Rochelle, New York. I have indefinitely blocked the user and placed a short-term block on the IP. Requesting checkuser for verification of my conclusion and because of the likelihood that there are other ducks sleeping in the same parts of the duckpond. Orlady (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Added several open proxies just blocked by me. Most or all re-did edits by Jvolkblum-proven sock,. Wknight94 talk  17:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Orlady (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Banned user with long history of using numerous sockpuppet accounts. Want to verify latest incarnation and look for others.
 * Tim Song (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ - both accounts. Also, most if not all of the IP addresses mentioned above are open proxies - A l is o n  ❤ 06:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All already taken care of. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 14:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Orlady
Newly registered user. Quacks like a duck: several edits are the same as those done by earlier Jvolkblum sockpuppet User:MisterPitt. Requesting checkuser to see if there are other ducks swimming nearby. Orlady (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: The accused party has requested an unblock on the account's User talk page. I believe that the similarity of this user's contributions to the previous contributions of confirmed sockpuppet MisterPitt fully justify the block that I placed on the account. I have noticed other similarities to other Jvolkblum edits, as well, and the unblock request itself is typical of Jvolkblum's work. --Orlady (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Orlady (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

– if the user is creating more socks, then there's another underlying IP (which can also be an OP per the last recent checks). –MuZemike 17:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ - the following accounts as socks of :




 * Hardblocked one narrow IP range. See how things go - A l is o n  ❤ 01:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Orlady
Duck-like behavior. Pichtle created several new articles on topics related to New Rochelle, New York. Articles reference newrochellenews.info, which was identified in an earlier sockpuppetry report for Jvolkblum; the website apparently is associated with (and likely created by) Jvolkblum. OTRS ticket 2009103110013893 is related to the newrochellenews website; someone apparently requested that Pichtle's new articles be tagged with a note about this ticket. The IP's sole edit created a link from an existing article to one of the new articles created by Pichtle (which had no other incoming links). I am requesting checkuser due to the possibility that there are other ducks in the pond. Orlady (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Orlady is referring to 68.45.201.4 above. I subsequently added 24.47.239.195 and 24.2.129.247 for further checking.   Wknight94  talk  19:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Orlady (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ Pichtle. No further accounts found on the IPs. Dominic·t 00:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Wknight94

 * SturgisBelken was created a few days after the last check (Pichtle included above for reference). Quacked quite a bit at outset - quacking now becoming too loud to ignore, so it's time for a check.  Thank you.   Wknight94  talk  12:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I agree with Wknight94's assessment. I've been watching this bird for a while, and it is a duck. --Orlady (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Wknight94  talk  12:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what we see. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 15:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC) all accounts have been blocked + tagged, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ and quite a sitting duck, too. - Mailer Diablo 20:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets


The two anonymous IPs are newly suspected sockpuppets. The registered account name is provided for reference; this account was confirmed as a sockpuppet in the most recent SPI case. --Orlady (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Orlady
The two IPs showed up at Wikipedia and created long articles about individual neighborhoods in New Rochelle, NY, in place of redirects. This is classicly duck-like. Checkuser is requested both to verify connection(s) and to request a check for other ducks swimming or sleeping in the same part of the pond. --Orlady (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Orlady (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I blocked all three IPs as open proxies. Last time Nishkid checked, he found 150 proxies!   Wknight94  talk  11:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

– I'm sure any extra proxies would have been found on the last check done 10 days ago. If there are no new accounts to pop up, then it would be nigh to impossible to find anymore proxies. –MuZemike 19:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please reconsider. Jvolkblum's history indicates a possibility that one or more new accounts would have been registered from -- or used to edit from -- any IP used for anonymous editing. --Orlady (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Checkuser - if he's using proxies, checkuser will be worthless for finding new accounts. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Wknight94

 * Same New Rochelle focus - moving from historic buildings to historic art apparently. High WP:QUACK factor.   Wknight94  talk  10:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  10:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

✅ I couldn't positively ID any sleepers, but he does a lot of editing from mobile ranges, so there could be some out there. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 03:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

named accounts have been blocked and tagged SpitfireTally-ho! 15:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Wknight94

 * Time for a Jvolkblum sleeper/underlying IP check. Found User:Nokcilc doing the usual ban evasion/New Rochelle thing.  Thank you.   Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  11:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  11:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The account was created a few days before the last check, but J.Delanoy indicated that there could have been some unidentifiable sleepers. This looks to be pretty clear, so maybe there's more that can be found now. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 14:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

. No sleepers or socks found. Note: I did not check to see if the account was a sock of Jvolkblum, as the account is already indefinitely blocked. --Deskana (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Wknight94

 * More of the usual New Rochelle obsession and ban evasion.  Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  11:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  11:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

– Behavioral evidence clearly indicates that this is all Jvolkblum. No CU necessary. –MuZemike 15:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ladeux indefinitely blocked and tagged. Unfortunately, there is too much collateral damage to even consider anon-only rangeblocks on either of the two given IP ranges. –MuZemike 15:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

auto-block should catch the most recent IP. Marking as closed SpitfireTally-ho! 20:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Wknight94

 * Another new account in the area of downstate NY historic buildings, MiniMrkt made an identical edit to blocked sock MisterPitt. Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  12:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Checkuser could be helpful in finding other sockpuppets in the same neighborhood. Jvolkblum typically has operated several socks at one time. --Orlady (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on behavioral evidence alone, User:NoMaaaM (the additional account that was named by Deskana) is clearly Jvolkblum. --Orlady (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Wknight94  <sup style="color: blue;">talk  12:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

--Deskana (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems likely to me. Also, looking at the technical data, it's possible (but unlikely) that NoMaaaM is the same as MiniMrkt. --Deskana (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Wknight94 blocked 'em. User:NoMaaaM's only edit was to create an article on a school in New Rochelle, so it seems plausible. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 05:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Orlady
Duck-like behavior consistent with the hundreds of previous Jvolkblum socks. Jvolkblum is a banned user with a long history of creating sockpuppets and using open proxies to evade the ban. Checkuser has some value in confirming the conclusions based on behavioral evidence (reducing the chance that a puppet will successfully enlist good-faith contributors to help the sock combat an alleged conspiracy -- this has happened in the past) and checkuser is extremely likely to identify additional socks that we have not noticed yet. Based on past experience, when 4 socks are detected in a short period, it's likely that there are another dozen that we haven't noticed yet. Orlady (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - Sleeper check in order. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

✅:

with the above and with each other – overlap in the various CU information:

–MuZemike 05:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All blocked and tagged. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  11:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

03 April 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Long-term abuse case Jvolkblum has reappeared with some pretty clear socks (and not so clear) obsessed with New Rochelle, New York and the vicinity. Copyright violations - here and at Commons - plagiarism, edit warring and rampant socking, sometimes through open proxies. History shows that many many sleepers may be in the drawer as well (over 150 in an off-site check). Thank you. Wknight94 talk 12:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

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

I added DCcomicluvr to this report. I blocked this user yesterday for editing that is clearly consistent with Jvolkblum. --Orlady (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed the status of this case to include checkuser request, since sleepers are likely and checkuser is needed to "clean out the sock drawer". --Orlady (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The following are ✅ matches to each other: As I read it, Checkuser data indicated that two of the accounts listed in the request were "possible" matches. I deem that one of the two possibles is clearly a sock based on behavior, and it is blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. The other "possible" account looks like it may be an innocent bystander, so it should not be blocked. It looks like this request is ready to be closed.--Orlady (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The other two accounts are matches, based on geography. No comments on the IPs.  TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  15:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean 1? All that are left to be considered is one account and 2 IPs. Of which 108 is blocking stale. --  DQ  (t)   (e)  20:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Most of these accounts were blocked (as suspects) by the requestor before the request was made; the principal purpose of the request was to find additional sleepers, which has been done. The sleepers that were detected are already blocked.
 * The other two accounts are matches, based on geography. No comments on the IPs.  TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  15:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean 1? All that are left to be considered is one account and 2 IPs. Of which 108 is blocking stale. --  DQ  (t)   (e)  20:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Most of these accounts were blocked (as suspects) by the requestor before the request was made; the principal purpose of the request was to find additional sleepers, which has been done. The sleepers that were detected are already blocked.
 * The other two accounts are matches, based on geography. No comments on the IPs.  TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  15:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean 1? All that are left to be considered is one account and 2 IPs. Of which 108 is blocking stale. --  DQ  (t)   (e)  20:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Most of these accounts were blocked (as suspects) by the requestor before the request was made; the principal purpose of the request was to find additional sleepers, which has been done. The sleepers that were detected are already blocked.
 * Comment: Most of these accounts were blocked (as suspects) by the requestor before the request was made; the principal purpose of the request was to find additional sleepers, which has been done. The sleepers that were detected are already blocked.


 * Very well. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  21:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

07 April 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Another sleeper check for banned Jvolkblum and his New Rochelle nonsense, please. Thank you. Wknight94 talk 13:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Reopening to add new suspected sockpuppets:



I blocked both of these users. A new checkuser is requested to see who else is in the sock drawer. Note that there are several other recent socks in the archived case from 3 April 2011; they may be useful for comparison. --Orlady (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a bunch more with IPs. Are range blocks plausible?  Wknight94 talk 13:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Two groups here, whose edits seem to tie them together: Group 2 (these two match each other as well):
 * ✅ these two match each other:
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 15:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All accounts have been blocked, and the IPs as well. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note, case re-opened above since archiving was delayed.  Wknight94 talk 13:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note, case re-opened above since archiving was delayed.  Wknight94 talk 13:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The two new accounts were blocked, but I'm endorsing for an IP block. This has to stop. (I've also blocked the last two IPs listed.) —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the person is how causing abuse from BlackBerry and other mobile ISPs, making rangeblocking impossible. I'm sorry, but there is nothing more CU can do here. –MuZemike 02:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

16 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

There has been extensive recent activity by users who are clearly sockpuppets of Jvolkblum, based on a lot of behavioral evidence, particularly recreation (under variant titles) of various articles previously deleted as the work of Jvolkblum socks. I have blocked the first 11 of the named users above, deleted a bunch of articles, and tried to get Commons to deal with content that was uploaded there. I'm not 100% sure that ChanceTears and 88huguenot are Jvolkblum, so I haven't blocked them yet. There are undoubtedly more socks in the drawer, so it's high time for a checkuser run to help find them. Orlady (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Since posting the above comment, I found Rumer225, blocked that account, and added it to the above list. --Orlady (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Same story for 28Shimms -- a user who is mostly active at Commons, and is definitely Jvolkblum based on behavior. --Orlady (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Added Kepclm for similar reasons. --Orlady (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I just now added IP 66.87.7.202 after that user showed up and reverted my recent revert of one of the named users above. This edit involved some images of doubtful provenance recently uploaded to Commons by ChoisOne in a pattern characteristic of Jvolkblum socks (the Jvolkblum account never edited at Commons) and is consistent with Jvolkblum's well-established pattern of promoting New Rochelle in every conceivable context. --Orlady (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Also adding ChoisOne to the list (and blocking). --Orlady (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that most of the edits by most of these users have been deleted, so it is necessary to look at deleted contributions to see their work, and difficult to supply meaningful diffs. As an example of the behavioral evidence, Rumer225 created Coopers Corners (New Rochelle), which is a recreation of deleted pages (created by earlier Jvolkblum socks) Coopers Corners, New Rochelle, Coopers Corners (New Rochelle, New York), and Coopers Corners. --Orlady (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Similarly, Gailsnail created Premium Point (New York), which is a recreation of titles including Premium Point and Premium Point, New York that were earlier created by other Jvolkblum socks. --Orlady (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * - to flush out sleepers on what appears to be extensive socking.
 * So the CU results are a little difficult to make a determination on because of a very busy mobile phone ISP, and I would encourage a review of each possible sock before blocking for behavior. all the following are related:


 * There could be a ton more from ranges that I did not look at, but since I saw a lot of overlap and hit everyone on this list with these ranges, I'm going to leave it alone for now. Obviously there is no rangeblock possible here, it's whack-a-mole. Please remember to look over each before blocking. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  19:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for all the effort involved in checking these. I'm slowly going through the records for the newly identified names to make sure they fit this sockmaster's behavior pattern before I delete contributions and block users. I thoroughly agree that this IP range can't be blocked (other than short-term blocks and autoblocks on IPs currently in active use by this sock collection). I note that you didn't name 88huguenot -- was that simply an error in copying down the list of names, or did that user not turn up? --Orlady (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked him, he was one of the last few I checked and I guess I missed him. Also, though if anyone is the odd ball he is. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  21:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information! --Orlady (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: While working through this list, I have found and blocked the following additional sock(s) based on behavior:
 * Orlady (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ the following are the same:

-- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  13:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of the named accounts are blocked and tagged except the following which remain open for consideration:


 * 88huguenot
 * A146-PC
 * ChanceTears
 * Errolwish
 * Namedtwice

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * They are all blocked and tagged now. (I confirmed 88huguenot based on behavior.) I still haven't finished cleaning up after these five. --Orlady (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing.

Argh! Two more moles just popped up: Please kind people, can I have another checkuser run? (Re-marking the case as open.) --Orlady (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Still, doubt any sleepers, but I would prefer when my mind is more clear to run this sleeper check, but i'll check again this after the UTC day rolls around. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  07:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I also found recent sock activity on (which I blocked for 24 hours). --Orlady (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  23:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Reopening... I regret to report the discovery of another two more users and an IP to check:

Also, I have suspicions about:
 * (blocked and tagged; active several days ago)
 * (active in the last hour; will block and tag)
 * (active today)
 * (although there are only two edits, this looks to me like Jvolkblum, and if it is, there may be other socks sitting beside it in the same drawer) --Orlady (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Updated to add one more. --Orlady (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Add the following to the list as :


 * as more evidence is needed. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  02:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the additional checking. It is very likely that Mildredspencer is a sock, but I did not totally revert this account's contributions because I successfully verified some of the content; also, I'm not blocking the user. I predict that Seventeenseventeen will never edit again; the only purpose in a checkuser would be to see if there are other users or newly registered accounts in the same drawer. The two edits are typical of Jvolkblum's past output: an innocuous cleanup edit in an article previously edited by the user (me) who has filed an SPI on Jvolkblum and creation, 5 minutes later, of a vanilla user page similar to others created by some new Jvolkblum socks (e.g., ; also, , , , ). FWIW, this diff includes edits that fully match Jvolkblum's behavioral profile, made a few hours ago from two different Blackberry IPs. --Orlady (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

19 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Ducky behavior matching one or more of the established "Jvolkblum" patterns. All of the registered users are blocked, but it's time once again for a checkuser to look in the sock drawer for sleepers. There were a couple of additional mobile-phone-type IPs involved since the last SPI report (for example, I recall seeing some Blackberry IPs); if I find others I will list them here for their information value. Orlady (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * - Oh heavens yes, this is him again, I'll likely run the checks tomorrow when I have some sleep. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  03:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * and
 * are socks of Jvolkblum.
 * Probably for . - Mailer Diablo 11:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing.
 * and
 * are socks of Jvolkblum.
 * Probably for . - Mailer Diablo 11:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing.
 * are socks of Jvolkblum.
 * Probably for . - Mailer Diablo 11:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing.


 * Thanks. I'm afraid that the new detects have led me to some additional users to check:
 * --Orlady (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I also notice recent activity by Jvolkblum on . --Orlady (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And --Orlady (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, note that is playing games at List of New Rochelle neighborhoods. --Orlady (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just added to the list of registered users. This user is one I discovered at Commons, where Jvolkblum socks operate pretty freely. --Orlady (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as I'm listing my suspicions, I added and  to the checkuser list. Both registered today and exhibited an immediate interest in minutiae related to New Rochelle. --Orlady (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I also notice recent activity by Jvolkblum on . --Orlady (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And --Orlady (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, note that is playing games at List of New Rochelle neighborhoods. --Orlady (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just added to the list of registered users. This user is one I discovered at Commons, where Jvolkblum socks operate pretty freely. --Orlady (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as I'm listing my suspicions, I added and  to the checkuser list. Both registered today and exhibited an immediate interest in minutiae related to New Rochelle. --Orlady (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * - to address the new finds.
 * Again, all to previous socks related to this SPI:
 * et al.
 * et al.
 * et al.



I have left notes on CU wiki for any further checks. We might just have to start issuing rangeblocks over mobile ISPs to stop him. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  05:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * is, and I say that because it's a new ISP, new useragent (never used before by sock), but still in the same area. Though use your behavior as the first line of defense with this sockmaster.
 * I've blocked and tagged the socks and cleaned up their problematic contributions. --Orlady (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like we're done for now so closing.

17 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Duck-like behavior, consistent with long-established Jvolkblum patterns, by the socks that I have blocked and all of the listed IPs. Im A Crab and Networkcaster are probables, based on behavioral evidence, but not confirmed on that basis yet. Grabbybagg has only one edit here, but it is consistent with other Jvolkblum work and the user uploaded a bunch of Jvolkblum content at Commons. Note that Faultyfilmz dates back to before the previous checkuser was done. Checkuser is requested to look for other socks -- it's time to clean out the sock drawer once again. Orlady (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Obviously the users are him, I got an admin to block the last two listed as ducks, and I have started the check, but can't do it at the moment right now. So, . -- DQ on the road  (ʞlɐʇ)  19:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously we can't confirm them, but on behavoir, and technical evidence these 4 in my block log are related. All accounts listed here should also be noted as related. Orlady, i'll be dropping you an email in the next few days about this. (Probally tomorrow) -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  01:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll check my email. Meanwhile, FTR, these results led me to . --Orlady (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep I think I mistook this user for collateral. (I was a bit tired at the time) Rechecked, everything else related to him is blocked, no collateral. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  07:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * DQ, HilltopFarm (in your above block list) is tagged as a sock of Cvlwr, not Jvolkblum. Which one is correct there? Jafeluv (talk) 07:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I bet that was just a misclick on the autofill box, i'll fix it in the morning as need, thanks for catching that. -- DQ on the road  (ʞlɐʇ)  10:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing.
 * Just when we thought it was safe to go back into the water, I spotted another duck:
 * This account edited for a while in August, and returned recently to edit a different one of Jvolkblum's pet topics. Requesting another CU to see if there any other socks in this new drawer. --Orlady (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ plus and  . I'm going to email you now, for real this time ;) Also tag fixed. --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  06:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * also. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  08:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * also. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  08:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Final CU and blocks completed, so closing. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

08 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Edit behavior consistent with the long-standing patterns of the hundreds of socks associated with banned user Jvolkblum. It's time for a checkuser to see what else is in the drawer. I have blocked most of the accounts based on behavioral evidence; the unblocked account(s) are suspected based on behavior. --Orlady (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Orlady (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Another admin blocked Erickack. --Orlady (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I will cycle through his ranges tomorrow Orlady unless another CU wants to look on CU wiki and run all of his ranges. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  06:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! But please don't assume that past history identifies all of his ranges. ;-) --Orlady (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

✅:

These accounts connect through extremely busy ranges, so while I believe I have caught the obvious socks, I do not guarantee so (and for the same reason, I was unable to range block).



✅:

I suggest you use caution when blocking this second group of accounts. I have not listed them as confirmed because they have not edited, so no behavioural connection can be made with Jvolkblum. Some are also technically indistinguishable because they edit through a mobile provider's server, which (even when checking a single address) can group together several users' traffic, and naturally these will all have similar technical indicators (all being the same type of mobile device). They may be innocent bystanders, or sleeper/throwaway accounts. Perhaps you should block, but not tag, those accounts; I leave that decision to you.

❌:.



with respect to the IP address(es).

AGK [•] 23:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I'm finished reviewing all these users and their edits. I didn't block any of the accounts in the last group. I'm surprised at the checkuser verdict for Geekthinker, as the user's brief edit history is fully consistent with Jvolkblum's modus operandi. If there are other users in the same range, I'd want to have a look at their work. --Orlady (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Another sock has appeared:
 * --Orlady (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I just added another IP (66.87.0.115) for the record. Please run a check that includes Maoeling. --Orlady (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * per the comment above. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's him. One other account, but no contribs, so I can't call it out right now as i'm not sure. But nothing else to do. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  23:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

28 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Newly hatched ducks; behavior consistent with the history of other Jvolkblum socks. All are blocked. Requesting checkuser to see if there are others in the sock drawer. Orlady (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - sleeper check Rschen7754 03:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cleaned out all of his ranges. Some where already CU blocked. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! A new one appeared since you ran the check: Ramblehouse. New account created an hour ago, probably to demonstrate that not all of his ranges are blocked. I've added the name to the list above. --Orlady (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * He's the only new one on the IPs I checked this time 'round. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

21 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets






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

Toujourslamour recreated (mostly verbatim) deleted content previously uploaded by one of the socks. Nassauforce and Jerrybase21 have no contributions here, but have exhibited ducky behavior at Commons. I've also seen a few ducklike edits by IPs from Jvolkblum's ranges. Checkuser requested because it's time to look in the sock drawer; given his cross-wiki activity, a coordinated CU with Commons would be appropriate. --Orlady (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Orlady (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Reopening the case after finding a new user, Albadla, based on ducklike behavior. Also listing an IP based on behavior. Requesting another CU because experience indicates there often are other socks lurking nearby in the drawer. --Orlady (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Diffs of the behavior at Commons will be useful for us to start an investigation. - Mailer Diablo 17:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Toujourslamour is Jv's classic behavior, so I ran his name. I got some completely new ranges and devices, so it looks like he's tried to evade more. I'll do a better sleeper check later, but ✅:


 * Also, Nassauforce is not a registered account on enwiki, and waiting evidence for Jerrybase21, for the one CU entry we'll get from him. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for running that check. Twirlswirl and Meathead56 both match on the basis of behavior.
 * As for the Commons users, note that some of the Commons uploads by both Nassauforce and Jerrybase21 have already been deleted, and both users are blocked there. (I contacted Jameslwoodward there around the same time that I reopened this case, and he blocked Nassauforce yesterday, apparently on behavioral similarity to Jerrybase21, who had been blocked earlier.) Nassauforce's contributions history at Commons shows that most of the user's not-yet-deleted contributions were uploaded in a 2-minute period on 17 March. Here are some diffs of Nassauforce's page creations at Commons; all are New Rochelle topics with file names and content that are characteristic of the patterns of Jvolkblum socks: (thumbnail-size image; almost certainly downloaded from the web, not user-created),  (a file that I'm pretty sure was previously uploaded by a Jvolkblum sock),  (a file that Twirlswirl added to an article here). Nassauforce's talk page on Commons contains filenames for some of that user's deleted files.  Jerrybase21's non-deleted contributions were mostly categorization edits to New Rochelle categories. Some diffs for Jerrybase21 include: created Neighborhoods category, creating a category that had been deleted at my request a couple of months ago, recategorized files and categories:, , , , . --Orlady (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Also, Meathead56 created a user on Commons with the name "Toujoursalot": ; I've not found any evidence of edits by that user. --Orlady (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Jerrybase21 = Circuswedding, a CU blocked account. I'd say you could call them both Jvolkblum on that basis. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  04:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocked Jerrybase21, closing. Rschen7754 19:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * - but please file a new SPI next time - it makes things a mess otherwise. Endorsing based on very similar single edit. Rschen7754 00:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The technical data doesn't seem to match and is on a new mobile network for Albadla. You'll have to stick to behavoir on this one. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  14:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's my opinion that both the IP and the new account are Jvolkblum, based on behavioral evidence alone. The account is already indeffed, and the IP only edited in one spurt a few days ago, so not taking any further action at this time. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

04 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Chichipolenta is already blocked as a sock of Jvolkblum. Topnamebrand has engaged in some behavior that reminds me of a duck, but I'm not 100% sure this is Jvolkblum. The subject matter of this user's articles is consistent with Jvolkblum. This new page creation is a lot like some of Jvolkblum's work, but there are some aspects that would be atypical. This one (which rearranged a page) and this one (which changed the display size of two images) are much like the kinds of edits that Jvolkblum often makes. I think I've seen some IPs in neighborhood recently, too -- I'll add them here if I remember them. Checkusers may have blocked other socks recently that I'm not aware of. Checkuser is requested to see if my suspicions on Topnamebrand are accurate, to look in the drawer for other socks, and to see if this banned user is creating new content that needs to be excised. Please note that a principal concern with this sockmaster is not his socks, but his content, which is likely to be carefully disguised copyvio. (I'm dismayed when I find that a checkuser has discovered and blocked one of his socks without touching the content, nor making anyone else aware of the new sock.) --Orlady (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Further to the above: Topnamebrand is blocked at Commons, for socking:. Chichipolenta received a welcome message at Commons, but I has no visible-to-me contributions there:. I identify Nopromises1 as a Jvolkblum sock recently active at Commons, but not registered here. Some cross-wiki checkusering with Commons could be productive. --Orlady (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Endorsing a check on Chichi, who is already indeffed based on behavioral evidence. Jvo socks do not come one at a time, based on the archive to this case. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Both of the accounts above are ✅, but I'll be along with some more accounts in a bit. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to those two, these are also ✅:
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

30 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The following accounts are ✅:
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 23:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Jvolkblum, a banned editor well known for disrupting the New Rochelle articles, has returned using long-term sleepers. Up to twelve accounts have recreated articles relating to New Rochelle that Jvolkblum and his socks have made. Seeing as Jvolkblum has a history of violating copyright, the accounts and the articles they have made should be deleted. The proof of them being Jvolkblum is their focus on New Rochelle and recreating articles Jvolkblum's socks have made. Henry Clark may not be a Jvolkblum sock, but the rest pass the duck test easily. Some of the editors mentioned in this report have been blocked in Commons as Jvolkblum socks. 89.243.176.152 (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Henry Clark has been blocked on Commons as a Jvolkblum sock: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Henry_Clark 89.243.176.152 (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I've removed all the accounts except the few that have actually edited in the last few months. I've also removed the IP as too old to consider blocking.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, I'd love for you to run CU and tell me/us what you found. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Only Henry Clark is not stale, and the accounts in the archives are stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The two unblocked accounts haven't edited in four months. Closing without prejudice. Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)