User talk:Jvolkblum

Am i correct that the User:Jvolkblum still retains ability to edit here on this Talk page? I would like to verify that. doncram (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If s/he didn't lose the password, then this is the only page s/he can edit with this account. Otherwise, how would s/he request an unblock? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened an Unban request on behalf of Jvolkblum and others, which also includes a ban request on Orlady, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady. doncram (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely frustrated that this issue is still continuing. I was blocked a year ago and made at least one attempt to request I not be banned. In my request I fully admitted to my mistakes and owned up what I did wrong however the decision was that I remain blocked. My request was also driven by a desire to end the continuing claims and assertions against my user name which is in fact an abbreviation of my real name. I had no strong desire to renew editing activity on the site if I was indeed unblocked. I have many things to work on and occupy my time with and wikipedia is not one of them. Months after my initial unblock request I found myself drawn back in after a colleague showed me the hundred(s) of hits that surfaced when she google searched my name. I truly believed this was a closed chapter in my life so please imagine my shock to realize this had continued and grown into such a large issue. I was compelled to reach out for help on a number of levels including filing requests with the omsbudsman (sp?) commission. There I expressed my frustration over the continued mis-application of my name to so many problems and issues in which I had no part whatsoever. I even raised the question of whether my personal privacy had been intentionally compromised because of the large number of times my name was being brought up. By doing so i had hoped that enough attention would be given to this matter that it would surely be brought to a close. Nowhere in my requests was I asking to be reinstated as a user. By that point I had become quite angry with the lack of help. My frustrations only intensified after I began pouring over thr minutia of details linked to the case against my name. I'm still confused and overwhelmed by it all. I even tried dropping the issue and moving on once again. I set-up a google alert for jvolkblum related issues so in case anything arose I wld know. Over the recent months these frequency of these alerts has continually increased, with the most recent one showing a request for comment by jvolkblum on my talk area. I do feel that the actions of the indivdual user named Orlady are a primary causes of my misery. I don't claim to know what her motivations truly are, or understand what real issues her actions stem from. She is directing it all at me which is not right and needs to stop. Its bizaare and its disturbing and it is a source of significant stress. I just returned from a five month task-force work assignment in London. Can someone help bring this to a close???? I don't know how I can defend my situation properly enough through an electronic communication such as this. Please advise me on what to do next ?? Thank you jvolkblum

You cause massive damage to the project and wasted the valuable time of a lot of people, including me. Try being productive on another wiki project for awhile to show you really intend to become a productive editor and aren't just blowing smoke our way again. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It took me five minutes to find writing similarities between this account and numerous recent sock accounts and IPs - similarities that I've never seen with anyone else. It's been you this whole time, and that means you're lying above. Time to stop focusing on User:Orlady and start focusing on yourself. She's not your problem and I'm not your problem - you are your problem, so only you can solve it. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case is a ridiculous waste of time. I havent been a part of these ongoing claims/issues etc. I have looked at the arguments on both sides and all I can see is that the information about New Rochelle is better sourced than anywhere else. It doesnt take too much energy to look into the facts and statistics posted on this suburban city to figure out if they are valid or not. Most of them seem to pan out so Im wondering what exactly these administrators are looking to prove. I can find inconsistencies in many of their actions (ie. 'policing' new rochelle articles for plagiarism yet editing other articles and not correcting apparent copyright violations that exist). It seems like this is an issue that could most certainly be 'squashed' if certain parties (ie. Orlady, wknight94 etc.) woulod be willing to work towards a solution. Please note that other users have attempted to work towards an answer and have been ignored or unfairly discredited because of their interest in the issue (ie. doncram). I have done addtional research and feel that Orlady is intent on causing continued 'drama' and believes she can revert the information which has been added to these articles, to control the content and limit what she does not care for. This is wrong and completely unethical. It is a baseless issue that is being pushed by one user in particular and she has been involved since day 1 (this user being Orlady).

As for Wknight94, he has made recent comments that if Jvolkblum dersired to be unblocked etc., then he could do so. Well, I desire to end this issue, possibly be unblocked as well, but am entirely open to resolution. Wknight94 responded with an antagonizing accusation against my claims and thus has proven that requesting assistance or even an unblock is a futile effort, especially because of the biased and questionabla actions of select administrators and editors involved in this issue. Why dont they back off and let other admins assess the issue on their own?? If there are wrongdoings and violations then they will surely be able to detect them and act accordingly. |98.14.241.176 (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Jvolkblum[reply]

Look at that, yet another IP range. I'm not sure you could stop socking if you wanted to. That notwithstanding, it's not up to me to decide your fate. Check all of the back-channel communication methods listed at WP:ARBCOM. Those are the people you need to convince. As far as other admins, I think plenty of them - and checkusers too - commented at Doncram's two failed WP:AN campaigns. At least 20 I think. And a few of them were arbitrators too IIRC. Good luck with that! And how is your work on other wikis coming to prove that you can behave? That's what Rlevse suggested here. He's also an arbitrator so hopefully you didn't just ignore his suggestion. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not post that comment to my takk page. I cannot say what the post-er intended (either to help my case, or to detract from it), however it was not written or posted by me. |Jvolkblum (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it was you. Had the tell-tale signs that give you away most every time. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An invitiation was extended for me to comment on my talk page, which is why I have recently done so. I don't have any desire to become involved in the site as an editor and am not requesting that I be unbanned or whatnot. I would like to try and bring an end to the ongoing associations that are being made between my account (user name) and sockpuppetry issues. I am not responsible for any edits or changes on this site. I have no interest in making any changes to wikipedia. I do think that this situation is an unfortunate one.

That's enough. I've fully protected this page. Contact the ArbCom if you have more to say. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]