Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jvolkblum

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.47.174.178 (talk) at 22:57, 26 January 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Jvolkblum

Jvolkblum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Click on 'show' to see the archive(s) of completed cases. (Do not modify these archives)
To file an additional sockpuppet case, click HERE
To file an additional sockpuppet case, including a request for checkuser, click HERE
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.

Added a little bit later:

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#Banned user Jvolkblum and New Rochelle, NY articles, 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
CheckUser requests

{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.

Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Orlady (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

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

Jjespere is also  Possible, 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 <codenetwork:Organization-Name:My privacy tools. The range appears to be 174.133.55.16/28.

174.34.157.70 may also be an open proxy -- the WHOIS information gives Ubiquity Server Solutions Chicago, 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 Jupiter Hosting Corporation. 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)[reply]

I see the 64.255.*.* addresses in my sleep since Jvolkblum uses them often. FWIW, I perused one subrange and almost every edit was to New Rochelle articles and some Indian television list. That seemed like a strange pattern to me so a range of open proxies makes perfect sense. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC
Thanks. Jvolkblum has been a heavy user of "My Privacy Tools." Also, Jupiter Hosting is one of the ISPs that Jvolkblum has used in the past, and there's been a long history of Jvolkblum edits from open-proxy and suspected open-proxy IPs. A major reason for requesting checks on these users is to see if there are any sleeper users on the same IPs -- I hope that any such users on these IPs have been quietly tagged and blocked. --Orlady (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Tenagrimes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and BQEDUDE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are also related. There were no unblocked accounts on any of the other IPs. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 09:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both accuonts blocked and a couple articles deleted. BTW, to Doncram, for a reminder of why Jvolkblum is banned, see Talk:Suburb#Copyvio and plagiarism. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
This went beyond plagiarism into copyright violation. Most was copied word-for-word. But this isn't the right place to discuss that issue. I responded at Talk:Suburb and maybe it's time to raise this at WP:AN. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

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

Jjespere is also  Possible, 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 <codenetwork:Organization-Name:My privacy tools. The range appears to be 174.133.55.16/28.

174.34.157.70 may also be an open proxy -- the WHOIS information gives Ubiquity Server Solutions Chicago, 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 Jupiter Hosting Corporation. 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)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It will shortly be archived automatically.

{{SPIclose}} is deprecated. Please change the parameter in the {{SPI case status}} to "close" instead. Tiptoety talk 21:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]



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)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests

{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.

Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Awaiting initial clerk review.    Requested by Orlady (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
  • 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)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It will shortly be archived automatically.

{{SPIclose}} is deprecated. Please change the parameter in the {{SPI case status}} to "close" instead.Tiptoety talk 20:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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[1] (identified as Jvolkblum sock in previous case) has uploaded files at Commons. Other apparent Jvolkblum socks recently active at Commons are Westyschuster[2] (blocked in EN as Jvolkblum sock), and LieselMan[3] (active in November 2008; no account on EN). --Orlady (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests

{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.

Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Orlady (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: The IP address geo-locates to Canada because it is a RIM (i.e. blackberry) address.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.

{{SPIclose}} is deprecated. Please change the parameter in the {{SPI case status}} to "close" instead. Mayalld (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jvolkblum&oldid=266629340"