Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (2nd)

User:Jvolkblum (2nd)

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

BlueAzure (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

At the conclusion of the first sock puppetry case Jvolkblum and their socks were indef blocked and the ip address was blocked for one month. Six days later FlanneryFamily made their first edit. The edit was to Wykagyl Golf Club, which was one the articles that was mentioned in the first case. Many of FlanneryFamily's edits were to New Rochelle, New York, which Jvolkblum has also made many edits to. FlanneryFamily also de-wikified headings as Jvolkblum and their socks did. FlanneryFamily changed the location of Sarah Lawrence College to Bronxville, this was a major part of the first sockpuppetry case.
 * Evidence
 * On 21 March and 22 March, when both User:FlanneryFamily and User:24.215.173.132 edited Sarah Lawrence College, there was substantial similarity between their edits. (Compare this FlanneryFamily diff with this IP user diff.) --Orlady (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Over the last 10 days, the timing of edits in Special:Contributions/FlanneryFamily and Special:Contributions/24.215.173.132 is consistent with one person actively monitoring for discrete periods, and switching back and forth between accounts. On 21 March, 24.215.173.132 posted as JVolkblum at 19:43 (all times are as they appear in my eastern U.S. preferences), FlanneryFamily edited at 20:41, and 24.215.173.132 came back at 23:15 and 23:26. On 22 March, 24.215.173.132 showed up at 01:20 as Jvolkblum, then FlanneryFamily edited at 01:51 and 02:11, 24.215.173.132 edited at 06:51 and 07:26 (the second of these in User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry), FlanneryFamily edited in User talk:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry shortly thereafter at 07:47, and both were quiet until 11:13 when 24.215.173.132 returned as Jvolkblum, after which FlanneryFamily made several edits from 13:46 to 15:04. Neither account edited again until 24 March, when 24.215.173.132 had two edits. Flannery Family had one edit on 25 March, and neither edited again until 29 March when both became active again. On 29 March, Flannery Family did three edits on New Rochelle topics between 02:00 and 02:27, then 24.215.173.132 showed up to edit the New Rochelle article at 02:29. FlanneryFamily returned at 03:25 and logged 8 edits in New Rochelle topics within the next 32 minutes. The IP user 24.215.173.132 returned at 04:29, then FlanneryFamily logged 9 edits between 04:52 and 05:01. The IP user 24.215.173.132 appeared 5 minutes later at 05:06 and was active intermittently until 11:39. --Orlady (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on my encounters with this user, it appears to me that FlanneryFamily's editing has strong similarities to the editing of blocked IP User:161.53.125.15 and User:DVac525 (blocked indefinitely as a sock of User:DJvac), including persistent dewikification and persistence on linking to http://maps.live.com/default.aspx in The City School District of New Rochelle. (Article was created by DVac525 with large collection of links to maps.live.com, one link restored by DVac525 after I deleted it, later dewikified by 161.53.125.15 and further dewikified by 201.255.156.91, after cleanup expanded and dewikified by FlanneryFamily, and after another cleanup dewikified again by FlanneryFamily, with restoration of links to maps.live.com.) I do not, however, think that changing the location of Sarah Lawrence College to Bronxville can be considered a diagnostic pattern; Sarah Lawrence's official location is Bronxville (although it's physically located in Yonkers), so it is likely that many people would (in good faith) change its location to Bronxville. --Orlady (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Addition of live.com images was a hallmark of User:DJvac's editing, as illustrated in this diff. --Orlady (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments

Could someone with checkuser privileges check to see what IP address Katherinehawk is using? I have reason to believe that this user may be yet another Jvolkblum sock puppet, but I'd need to know the IP address to be sure. Thanks! HMishkoff (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Katherinehawk?
 * I also perceive a correlation between Katherinehawk's edits [which were limited to templating articles about (1) U.S. shopping centers and (2) northeastern U.S. women's colleges as "adverts") and the edit patterns of both Jvolkblum and 24.215.173.132. --Orlady (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is another new user who is focused on New Rochelle, Bronxville, and nearby towns, and who has displayed a pattern of adding images that are labeled as "self-made" although they obviously are not. See Special:Contributions/JONJON78. --Orlady (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * JONJON78 ?

User:24.215.173.132 is blocked (again) for one month. This may reduce the level of activity by all of these other suspected socks. --Orlady (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC) However, JONJON78 edited after the block was placed. --Orlady (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for one month.

from the others that you mentioned and I believe they all are individual users as well. This issue has been discussed in group outside of Wikipedia and has raised a few eyebrows. There doesnt seem to be anyone in an 'administrative' role who finds it important to engage in proactive dialogue or even attempt to mentor the contributing users. If there wasnt important and helpful information being added to the articles I would definitely see the need for extra focus. --fact checker (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate that such an emphasis is being placed on the suspected sockpuppetry of the above named user. I am a separate user


 * Your accusation is untrue. Your argument needs to be rechecked--SLCAlums (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume this is aimed at me, as I was the one who reported on this page that you were a sockpuppet. I should point out that this was not my own conclusion, it was based on a conclusion supplied by Thatcher on the Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum page. However, that sounds pretty lame, even to me, as I really should not be advancing someone else's conclusion with no idea of how they reached it. Accordingly, I've deleted the "accusation" from this page. HMishkoff (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless, an administrator checked user IPs and posted that "Katherinehawk=jvolkblum, also JONJON78, FlanneryFamily and SLCAlums". --Orlady (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your understanding [HMISHKOFF]. But now i am being accused again. This is untrue and rather annoying (to say the least).--SLCAlums (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added another suspected sock to the list. was created at 14:15 on March 31, at 14:32 they made their first edit (to Sarah Lawrence College campus). This article has been edited by many of Jvolkblum's sockpuppets. The first edit, dewikifed headers. At 14:37, FlanneryFamily, another Jvolkblum sockpuppet, made an edit to the same article. Then at 14:53, ABC123UNME made another edit to the article, further dewikifying the article's headers.

Jvolkblum has continued to use open proxies to edit logged out. As previously mentioned in the sockpuppetry case Jvolkblum edited as, which was blocked as an open proxy. , which is an open proxy, made a series of edit to New Rochelle. In this edit they added a ref with the edit summary "added requested reference (which was on school district page already))". The The City School District of New Rochelle has only been edited Jvolkblum socks and editors dealing with Jvolkblum. The same ref was added to that article by FlanneryFamily. In this edit 148.81.175.50 added on to a statement that 24.215.173.132 added two days before. BlueAzure (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * the connection to me is ..? that I did work on the Sarah Lawrence page? I am not sure if you see by my name ( SLCAlums ) that I have an interest in that subject in particular. So, one more, your accusations toward me are not true. --SLCAlums (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I read through the claim directly above to determine its relevance to me, of which there is none. The claim itself doesnt make sense . . . the edit made by whatever user you are tracking for 'wrongdoing' clearly seems to have been made in good faith and in response to a "citation needed" tag inserted in the text of the article. Anyone reading this schools-summary in the Newrochelle article can link to the main page for the district and see the same information is provided with citation. It seems only logical to apply the same citation to the same information on the other page. ??? --SLCAlums (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added another suspected sock to the list. uploaded Image:CityHall_1911.JPG and Image:Skyline1902.JPG listing the author as FlanneryFamily. Jvolkblum has continued using open proxies to edit logged out (, , and ). In addition to image copyvios, Jvolkblum's socks have been inserting copyrighted text into articles. BlueAzure (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added still more suspected socks. At Commons, a new user named Smurfette143 uploaded several images files that are remarkably similar to images that FlanneryFamily uploaded here and whose copyright/source has been questioned. The name Smurfette143 was registered here a few days ago, although there are no contributions from this user, it is likely to be the same user who uploaded files at Commons. IP users 62.173.38.81 (diff) and 69.86.92.163 (diff) replaced links to some of the questioned images with Smurfette143's new "commons" images in New Rochelle, New York and possibly other articles. Other IP users edited heavily in New Rochelle articles during the same time period and may also be connected. --Orlady (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There's additional cross-wiki activity that appears to be from the same source. Someone has been posting commercial-looking photos of New Rochelle (similar to copy-vio photos uploaded here by FlanneryFamily) on flickr under the name schmaberton. Photos then are uploaded to Commons by a bot and inserted in Wikipedia articles. New user Fronkenstein, who has no other edits, lost no time in adding a batch of newly uploaded Commons photos to New Rochelle, New Yorkdiff and Wykagyl, New Yorkdiff. --Orlady (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a shared consensus (amongst non-administrative wikipedia users and viewers) that due to the errors of a few (in protocol/ information sourcing etc.) select articles relating to New Rochelle are being targeted by a select group of 'administrators'. Many of those concerned have gone onto the wikipedia site with their individual contributions. The common goal has been to help maintain the integrity of the article in light of the underlying administrative issues. More specifically: when users attempt to replace 'questioned' info. with proper revisions & citations their efforts are deleted or deemed the work of a 'sockpuppeteer'; when images are restored with valid & appropriate sourcing, or replaced with valid images of similar sunbject matter, their efforts are deemed phony, or the work of a 'sockpuppeteer'. The information within these articles relates to readily available, widely referenced public knowledge and historical facts. Much of the relevant imagery initially provided readily available and easily replaced by others. The attempts to correct errors made by other individuals while maintaining factual, relevant, properly referenced subject matter should be viewed as such.

My contributions to the articles are varied but began with edits to images. These edits were either to replace images with ones that were appropriately referenced and sourced, or to add relevant images that were available. --Fronkenstein (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Results of a checkuser request: "Fronkenstein and ABC123UNME are confirmed, 15ParkRow is inconclusive as the account has exclusively used open proxies." --Orlady (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Most accounts blocked per this case or Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum. IPs haven't been blocked, 15ParkRow (due to the above comment per the RFCU case), neither has Smurfette143; no contributions as of yet. Rudget ( review ) 16:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions