Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser‎ | Case

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JohnnyCochran (talk | contribs) at 23:29, 12 January 2007 (→‎BryanFromPalatine). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

BryanFromPalatine

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 06:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Code letter: F

209.221.240.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), ClemsonTiger, and JohnnyCochran are all sockpuppet users of checkuser-confirmed (multiple violations) puppeteer BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (This user (Bryan) was blocked for two weeks on Jan 06, after one day back from a one week block. (all for puppetry) Bryan admitted to this IP puppet after it was shown that this IP replied ( IP 209/Bryan's edit ) to sock puppet charges against another puppet of Bryan, banned user ArlingtonTX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). This IP signed the edit as BryanFromPalatine. This new suspected puppet, ClemsonTiger, has edited Robert Bosch, and Free Republic and claims to be a Clemson grad, an intellectual properties lawyer and a 'liberal'. Note that confirmed and banned puppet of BryanFromPalatine DP1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) also claimed to be an Intellectual Properties lawyer and a liberal, and edited Free Republic, Bosch, and Clemson. New suspected puppet ClemsonTiger almost certainly a 'clone' of 'ficitious persona' DP1976, one member of a whole 'army' of BryanFromPalatine's puppets.

ArlingtonTX, confirmed puppet of Bryan, wrote (regarding other fictitious personas in his sock puppet army) "BryanFromPalatine is part of our "tribe." So is DP1976. So is 12ptHelvetica. DP1976, for example, is a flaming left-wing partisan. DP1976 edited for 1-1/2 years on yet a third different broad range of topics such as Clemson University. " sock army discussion

Checkuser conclusions on DP1976, confirmed puppet of Bryan : HERE

On his FIRST DAY of editing, Jan 02, 2007, ClemsonTiger (BryanFromPalatine) BLANKED the page where an admin had posted the sockpuppet confirmation of one of Bryan's sockuppets - on the user page of 209.221.240.193 an Admin checkuser-confirmed puppet account of puppeteer Bryan. Bryan/ClemsonTiger Blanks Page - Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AND The talk page for that IP address now proclaims that it is indeed ClemsonTiger, and checkuser confirmed this IP is BryanFromPalatine. Can we please have a permanent sanction against this person [and IP 209.221.240.193] who continually evades blocks by sockpuppeting? BenBurch 00:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for admin as requested

Puppeteer BryanFromPalatine recieved a one week block on "29 December 2006 Ral315 (Talk | contribs) blocked "BryanFromPalatine (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Sockpuppeting.)"

New puppet (of Bryan) ClemsonTiger was 'born' on Jan 02. On his FIRST DAY of editing, Jan 02, 2007, ClemsonTiger (BryanFromPalatine) BLANKED the page where an admin had posted the sockpuppet confirmation of one of Bryan's sockuppets - on the user page of 209.221.240.193 another Admin checkuser-confirmed sock account of puppeteer Bryan. Bryan/ClemsonTiger Blanks Page

MORE: :On Jan 04 2007 ClemsonTiger admitted he was also IP user 209.221.240.193 Clemson admits he is User:209.221.240.193
For additional evidence, including comments from the accused please see the current sockpuppetry case. ByranFromPalatine's 4th sockpuppetry case - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These accusers seem to be in the habit of relaying only half of the story. Here's the other half. This is a law library computer and over 100 people have access to it. Look at the contributions history of each account. Others who have used this computer worked almost exclusively on the Free Republic article. They allowed themselves to be drawn into edit wars and arguments with F.A.A.F.A. and BenBurch. I have never edited the Free Republic article. Never. Not even once. I have offered four or five extremely polite, constructive suggestions on its Talk page, and I've refused to allow their badgering and personal attacks to draw me into an argument. Ninety-nine percent of my edits have been constructive edits on completely unrelated topics.
The only reason I attracted their attention at all was that I was foolish enough to look at the Free Republic talk page to see what all the fuss was about. There were BenBurch and F.A.A.F.A., posting personal attacks against BryanFromPalatine, who was unable to defend himself because he'd been blocked. Another user, Picaroon, and an administrator, Prodego, had already recognized them as personal attacks. [1] I stepped in to gently provide them some perspective on the personal attacks they were posting, based on their own histories of being blocked.
It should be clear from the contributions histories that these are different people using the same computer. The appropriate finding of this Checkuser should be Unlikely.
And now, if you don't mind, I'd like to return to making constructive edits on baseball-related articles. I await a decision. - ClemsonTiger 14:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask how you are so sure that both you and Bryan edit from the same shared IP? This has never been confirmed, and the only way to possibly know this information would be if you are actually Bryan as well. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 15:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have gotten to the crux of the matter. This user also went right back to Bryan's agenda in the FR talk page. And why did he even think to look there? He says he wondered what all the fuss was about, but there was no fuss anywhere but that page. And why did he mark the user page for that IP address as his HOME ADDRESS for a while? And why do lawyers not have any internet access at their desks? Why use a shared terminal in the law library? None of this makes any sense at all unless all are using the same computer and the same address because they all are Bryan! Also, we know the IP addresses match the previous checkuser already. This is just an attempt to dupe us and evade a block. --BenBurch 15:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Daniel's question, Bryan has admitted that on a particular day, all edits from the 209 IP address were his. [2] To answer BenBurch's accusation, there has been a mile-wide trail of fussing all over Wikipedia from these two. They leave these little yellow notices everywhere they go. I remembered seeing it on the IP 209 page and one day, I thought I'd check the history of that page. Clicking on a few user pages from the history page eventually led me to the Free Republic battlefield. I realize now that it was a terrible mistake, and didn't intend to step into a minefield. - ClemsonTiger 15:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that 'Johnny' admits to being a sock " "I've created this sock puppet account solely for the purpose of illustrating how ridiculous these two are becoming, and insulating myself from any of their stalking and retaliation." HERE - Fairness And Accuracy For All 15:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As he has observed, some socks are legal; only socks that are used for abusive or disruptive purposes are inappropriate. Considering that his stated purpose was to avoid stalking and retaliation from you on his main account, I understand why he would create a sock puppet account. (In fact, I fail to understand why a checkuser would even be called for in this case. The proper response from admins might be Declined. Neither JohnnyCochran nor my account has ever been used for an abusive or disruptive purpose.) I appreciate and am humbled by his selfless efforts to defend me, and admins are encouraged to read his posts in my defense. - ClemsonTiger 15:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But "he" (JohnnyCochran) is you, and you admitted that. Why are you contibuing to talk about 'Johnny' as a third person when he is you? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 15:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(UI) Point of interest : Please see discussion of IP 209.221.240.193 towards the end of the following page starting with "Well Johnny" BryanFromPalatine Sock Case Maybe an Admin can make a phone call, as I suggested, to see if that IP is in a "law library". - Fairness And Accuracy For All 15:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repost (with updated material)

I'm a member in good standing at Wikipedia. I have created this sock puppet account solely for the purpose of addressing these ludicrous accusations, and insulating myself from the stalking and retaliation by F.A.A.F.A. and BenBurch that would surely follow. I have been watching these two, with varying amounts of amusement, amazement and disgust, for several months.

ClemsonTiger is not a single purpose account. He has over 160 edits, and only a handful were on the Free Republic talk page. he has never edited the Free Republic article at all. If he has a single purpose, it's baseball statistics. ClemsonTiger has a well-established record of constructive edits. That doesn't look like a sock puppet.

This account was not created minutes before the snarky remarks were posted. That also doesn't look like a sock puppet.

This account has reverted obvious vandalism.

Not just once, but twice.

Not just twice, but three times.

On all three occasions, this account posted a warning to the offenders.

He also reported the vandalism to administrators, resulting in an indefinite block of one of the vandals.

the best way to make a sock seem real is to put in a tiny amount of work That's the most ridiculous part of their entire ridiculous argument. The amount of work ClemsonTiger has done here is definitely not "tiny." You've provided links to his contributions and I took the time to read them. He's now creating entire articles from scratch. He's doing extensive rewrites, turning stubs into full-sized articles, and adding literally dozens of statistical tables to articles about baseball players, and correcting major factual errors along the way. What we are watching here is the emergence of a dedicated and prolific new writer for Wikipedia. He is making Wikipedia a much better resource, at least for baseball fans.

ClemsonTiger’s story is very consistent and credible, no matter how much these two try to distort it and ridicule him. It is consistent with what the other two users have said as well, and it is consistent with the information from WHOIS.

ClemsonTiger has been a good citizen of Wikipedia. In stark contrast, BenBurch and F.A.A.F.A. have a long and detailed history of edit wars, 3RR violations, and personal attacks in pursuit of their POV pushing. Both of them have already been blocked for this misconduct at least once; F.A.A.F.A., in his previous guise as NBGPWS (which stands for "Neocons Be Gone, Protest Warrior Sucks") was banned for a month.

Wikipedia administrators should compare their respective edit histories, block logs and Talk pages (with archives, including the archives BenBurch has concealed), and determine who they'd rather have hanging around. The defense rests.

JohnnyCochran 23:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

BryanFromPalatine

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 07:32, December 27 2006 (UTC)
  • Code letter: A

Several 'new editors' started editing and acting in concert to sway the NPOV of a hotly contested article all at approx the same time. Their actions and writing style caused other editors to believe that they might be sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets. A case was filed on BryanFromPalantine.

On Dec 26, User DP1976 admitted that he was also User IP 209.221.240.193. HERE User 209.221.240.193 posted on Dec 14, HERE and subsequently, user BryanFromPalatine both edited said post 'claiming ownership' of the post by adding his name HERE and added additional text to this same post, again representing himself as 'BryanFromPalatine' HERE

One user/IP address is therefore posting as at least three different and distinct 'users' in an effort to illegally 'vote' and sway consensus. F.A.A.F.A. 07:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also this sockpuppet case; Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BryanFromPalatine --BenBurch 07:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note • Removed private information posted. Please see the privacy policy. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 16:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As always, the BenBurch/FAAFA comedy team assumes the worst about anyone who disagrees with them. They ignore the possibility that two (or three, or more) real, live people might occasionally post from the same IP address. If they acknowledge that possibility, they then assume that they are all "Meatpuppets" rather than "sockpuppets." We are different people and we have differences of opinion, as evidenced by our different responses to the constant hostility/suspicion displayed by BenBurch/FAAFA, and as evidenced by the distinct posting histories at each IP address, prior to registration. Each IP address was used for a different period of time, to edit a completely different array of articles. - DP1976 19:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence

Bryanfrompalatine confirmed sockpuppetry by 12ptHelvetica who he says posts as 208.250.137.2 "B. The home address of 12ptHelvetica is 208.250.137.2" see HERE On Dec 9 at 22:05 IP 208.250.137.2 added "I see that this issue has been the subject of much contention since I last looked in on November 16".... HERE 5 minutes later 12pt posted agreeing with the post from 208 (himself) "I agree" "Count my vote in the consensus" adding a 'vote' to a consensus tally. HERE - F.A.A.F.A. 03:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even more evidence

On 12/21 DP1976 edited the post of 12ptHelvetica adding content HERE - F.A.A.F.A. 03:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but isn't calling all of these examples "proof" a little presumptuous of you? "Proof" indicates that it's an undeniable fact that your accusations are true, which it is not. You are providing evidence, not proof. Jinxmchue 04:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed DP1976 and BryanFromPalatine. It is  Possible that 12ptHelvetica is the same. Dmcdevit·t 09:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Bryan appears to be the puppeteer, as that account is the older of the two. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: "Erroneous sockpuppet finding" discussion and discussion about who is the puppeteer moved to talk page. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: case moved to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine - the history is still available here. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine&oldid=100329105"