Jvolkblum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
15ParkRow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Smurfette143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.86.92.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BlueAzure (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The two accounts were previously identified as Jvolkblum sock's during the previous sockpupperty case. 15ParkRow (talk · contribs) was not blocked because the checkuser run at that time was inconclusive due to exclusive use of open proxies. Smurfette143 (talk · contribs) was not blocked because no edits had been made by that account. A subsequent checkuser has confirmed both accounts as socks.
69.86.92.251 (talk · contribs) is the ip address that Jvolkblum is using to edit logged out. At 18:53 on April 19, 69.86.92.251 made this edit with the edit summary "Undid user vandalism/ deletion of notable alumni + citations >> ( information is ACCURATE and citations are credible". Eight minutes later 15ParkRow made this edit with the edit summary "Undid user vandalism/ deletion of notable residents + citations >> ( information is ACCURATE and citations are credible". The address's whois and traceroute match 24.215.173.132 (talk · contribs) which was previously Jvolkblum IP address, indicating that Jvolkblum was able to get a new ip address from their isp. The new IP address like the old one appears to be static.
BlueAzure has described the situation accurately. After the most recent checkuser results were returned, these users were inactive for a while. In the last few days, thought, 15ParkRow started editing actively. Most of his/her contributions appeared to be responsible, causing me to temporarily assume in good faith that s/he was turning over a new leaf. However, I have been dismayed to see that familiar old behavior has resumed on the 15ParkRow account, such as uploading File:NRLelandCastle.JPG and claiming it was a personally made photo (it was a blatant copyvio of a photo from the New York Times) and this edit on City School District of New Rochelle, in which a reference to a school district brochure was identified as being a Wall St. Journal article. --Orlady (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence looks very persuasive to me. The connections between the accounts are logical and strong. I considered writing a conclusion and blocking the accounts but I'm somewhat unfamiliar with the process and didn't want to muck it up doing it. Pigman☿ 04:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced...both accounts indefinitely blocked as it appears the master account has no desire to turn over a new leaf. GBT/C 12:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]