Jump to content

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jvolkblum (18th)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Jvolkblum (18th)

[edit]
Suspected sock puppeteer

Jvolkblum (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence

I believe that this banned user and long-time sockpuppeteer is back and is actively contributing (here and at Commons) under several user names (plus various IP addresses, most of which are used too briefly to be blocked under WP policies). Consistent with past Jvolkblum socks, these contributors have contemporaneous bursts of editing activity and they contribute to one another's articles and discussions. I believe they are engaged in a campaign to mock Wikipedia by pawning off copyvio images as "Commons" material, creating articles about ephemeral topics that interest them, adding erroneous information to articles, and messing with formats and styles.

TheTeenDream's very first act as a brand-new user was to create a new article about an ephemeral New Rochelle-related topic, displaying an image that History-fun had recently uploaded to Commons.

History-fun has uploaded several questionable images of New Rochelle topics at Commons (Commons contributions -- some uploads have been deleted) and has just two article edits here (both in New Rochelle articles). The first of his article edits was to add one of his/her uploads to an article that had been created by TheTeenDream. "Interestingly", the image is a map that History-fun had uploaded to Commons shortly after I placed a "disputed" template on TheTeenDream's new article. The other edit juggled the display of an image (for the worse). History-fun also has two edits to user pages here -- creating a user page is often one of Jvolkblum's first acts in creating a new sockpuppet.

Geezalou is a name similar to some that Jvolkblum has used in the past. (For similar names, see SaidieLou at Commons, User:Sweetiedarling here, and other names like KatieGrinn in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jvolkblum.) This user has done some good work (I assumed this was Jvolkblum when I first saw the user, and was hoping s/he had "gone straight"), but has Jvolkblum's single-minded interest in glorifying topics related to New Rochelle, has edited the same suite of articles as Jvolkblum, and has uploaded images at Commons that are remarkably similar in subject matter and other characteristics to those uploaded by Jvolkblum (see Commons contributions).

SOPHIEMAYS is a brand new user whose only edits have been creation of a blank user page (this is one of Jvolkblum's propensities) and adding original research to an article that Jvolkblum puppets have been fond of in the past. The all-caps name is a pattern that Jvolkblum has used several times in the past (see User:PLATOLAWS, User:ABC123UNME, and User:JONJON78, to name a few).

At Commons, ChucksBike-O-Rama has uploaded a large collection of images related to Sarah Lawrence College. All (or almost all) have the characteristics of published images, but uploader claims all as "own work." Jvolkblum has had a long-standing interest in documenting Sarah Lawrence, and a long-time habit of uploading copyvio images. Also, in the manner of Jvolkblum, this user created a blank user page at Commons and is responding in high dudgeon to my allegations that the claimed image licenses are not valid. Here, the focus of his article edits has been to insert his Commons images (this diff covers most of them), in at least one case in place of an image that appears to be truly free. Oh, and he's also created a user page here.

75.125.163.146 is registered to ThePlanet (service frequently used by Jvolkblum when editing logged out). This IP's two recent edits were to alter or delete Wikiproject ratings on two articles about New Rochelle public schools. That's garden-variety minor vandalism; however, considering the IP association and the articles affected, I assume it's Jvolkblum taunting Wikipedia.

75.125.166.3 has a combination of interests in Wykagyl Golf Club and Sarah Lawrence College -- that pair of interests is one of Jvolkblum's signature characteristics.

The timing of edits can be "interesting." Alertcollection made 8 edits between 20:08 and 20:38 (UTC) on 3 October, then came back from 3 more edits between 21:32 and 21:51. In between those times, SOPHIEMAYS edited at 20:54 and 21:15, and TheTeenDream created a user page at 21:16. On 4 October, History-fun made 3 edits between 4:27 and 4:30 (UTC), and BaadenBaden edited at 4:02 and 4:07, then made 3 edits between 4:37 and 4:42, including one to the user talk page for ChucksBike-O-Rama. This behavior suggests socks that were "tag-teaming."

More evidence (added after listing the report and notifying suspects)

BaadenBaden has focused on Sarah Lawrence College topics. In a series of edits to List of Sarah Lawrence College people (diffs), this user added some previously omitted reference support, removed the refimprove template (possibly prematurely), and created an unusual image box in that article highlighting "select SLC notables"(Jvolkblum loves to do odd things with images). In the campus article (diffs), this user removed the statement that the campus is in Yonkers (Jvolkblum has a long history of fighting against that reality) and added one of ChucksBike-O-Rama's dubious Commons images. Additionally, less than 24 hours after joining, this user created a useless user page.

Snappydressr is yet another Sarah Lawrence specialist, who stands out for self-welcoming to Wikipedia (this diff) and creating a particularly useless user page (this diff). This users edits in the SLC campus article (diffs) had the effect of completely rearranging the article for no apparent reason (one of Jvolkblum's specialties), while inserting several images that had been uploaded at one time or another by Jvolkblum and various socks.

AgentHart has specialized in Wykagyl Country Club, both here and at Commons (Commons contributions). I have not attempted to investigate the images, but I would be surprised if the "self-made" claims check out as valid. Jvolkblum has uploaded similar images in the past.

The chief attributes of Alertcollection that link this user to Jvolkblum are (1) a dedication to highlighting every notable resident that New Rochelle can claim (diffs; Jvolkblum has long been devoted to this activity) and (2) early creation of a user page and a user talk page.

69.86.223.192 has focused on Sarah Lawrence and New Rochelle. Edits include inserting/editing some ChucksBike-O-Rama Commons images in the SLC article (see these diffs) and an edit that is best characterized as minor vandalism (see this diff).

I am adding Willacoochie to this report. This user has done some sensible work and made some newbie-style errors, but the overall pattern of contributions matches Jvolkblum's fingerprint. User's first act was creation of a user page, and this diff includes addition of "small" HTML tags -- something that Jvolkblum has done fairly often. --Orlady (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Response regarding my errors
Hello. My response to the deletion requests was in support of my contributions. I believed these images were valid and was following the protocol to respond. I do no think that I responded in 'high dudgeon' as the reporting user has documented. User 'Infrogmation' communicated with me through several helpful messages and I realized, to my error, that I misunderstood the rules of ownership and was in error with most of the images I added. I appreciate his/her help and apologize for the mistakes. I would like to add that I was taken aback by the actions of Orlady and her basic lack of courtesy in dealing with her questions over my images. I also believe that when nominating images to be deleted
it is standard practice to make a note on any article in which it is used. I have seen such notices on many occasions yet Orlady has neglected this part of the procedure. further action of adding me to the suckpuppet list only furthers my unease over the situation. If I was mistaken in my actions, which I was, don't I still deserve a certain level of kindness? It just doesn't seem right. The report she has compiled doesnt seem fair or right either.

She has nominated others for wrongdoing in this same report, and they each have questionable aspects that should also raise a few red flags.
For instance: A] She disputed with Geezolou over terminology use in an article, arguing over a very strange and unnecessary issue. She appears to have been incorrect .example This users other actions involve moving existing images from Wikipedia to Wiki-Commons, a practice promoted by the Wikipedia site if I am correct? The images all happen to be related to a particular town (the same town involving the issue from the previously mentioned example). You can see that Orladys edits on the wikicommons page are almost entirely 'deletion requests' of images ALSO related to this town. There is an obvious conflict of interests here.

B] TheTeenDream added a new page to the wikipedia and Orlady immediately questioned its validity, adding a template to the top to signify 'unsure factual content'. I googled the topic of the page and easily verified that the information was correct. Orlady again was wrong and unfair with her actions towards the user.

C] History-fun added a historical map to the same Teendream article that was questioned by Orlady, and also made an edit to one other article related to the same town. Neither of this users actions warrants the suspicion being raised by Orlady. The edits of History-fun and Teendream are similar but certainly do not show evidence of 'collusion' or wrongdoing.

D] Sophiways seems to have made a single edit to an article without including a source for the information added. Orlady signaled on the article page and communicated to the user sophiemays that the information needs a source.
Shortly after Orlady added that user to this list of wrongdoers. Her actions in this case do not seem justified either. --ChucksBike-O-Rama (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I was about to add this response I see there are more people added to this list of wrongdoers. I have also just noticed the extent of this sockpuppetry claim that was created (I think) and perpetuated almost entirely by Orlady. This is a disturbing situation which I hope is not a reflection of the site as a whole. --ChucksBike-O-Rama (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also wasnt notified of this accusation. She does not seem to have notified any of the other individuals either. This violates not only the site policy but also the rights of each individual to adequately respond. Orlady is clearly manipulating the processes to her advantage, calling community attention quickly and in extreme detail, in order to remove the 'problem' people or information ASAP. Bypassing the rights of other users is a very serious issue. I am sure she will see this comment posted and make the proper corrections but it seems important to make mention of this added example of Orladys questionable behavior.--ChucksBike-O-Rama (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello, "Chucks". Your finding this case indicates that you are remarkably adept at navigating around Wikipedia, particularly for a new user. I had not finished documenting this sockpuppetry case, so I have not yet added it to the index list nor notified the users suspected of sockpuppetry. I guess I need to do so now, even though the documentation is incomplete. --Orlady (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

There is a sock and copyvio report on this user at commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Attention#.22New.22_user_uploading_numerous_images_with_implausible_claims_of_origin.2Fownership — Rlevse • Talk • 22:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed RFCUs on en wiki and on commons, commons link is commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChucksBike-O-Rama — Rlevse • Talk • 22:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons one is done: commons:Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ChucksBike-O-Rama — Rlevse • Talk • 00:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Named accounts blocked and tagged, waiting to close pending en wiki CU check. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These and DOZENS more socks found at en wiki and commons RFCUs. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jvolkblum_(18th)&oldid=243158848"