BryanFromPalatine (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
ClemsonTiger (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
209.221.240.193 (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RBLs ·
proxy check ·
block user ·
block log ·
cross-wiki contribs ·
CheckUser (
log)) (added by)
FAAFA
JohnnyCochran (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (added by
User:BenBurch as that user admits to being a sock in this thread.)
User first appeared during the first sockpuppeting block of BryanFromPalatine. (He is on a second two week block now for more sockpuppeting (and note there has already been one sock banned DURING this block.) Note that user claims to be a Clemson Graduate and an Intellectual Property Lawyer. Bryan's sock puppets at varying times claimed to be from Clemson, and to be IP Lawyers. Now this user has appeared on the Free Republic article to defend BryanFromPalatine. What are the odds? -- BenBurch 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
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 who continually evades blocks by sockpuppeting? BenBurch 00:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm a member in good standing at Wikipedia. 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. I've been watching these two with varying degrees of amusement and disgust for a long time. This has got to be stopped.
Bryan's sock puppets at varying times claimed to be from Clemson, and to be IP Lawyers. I presume that you can prove this with a link.
Now this user has appeared on the Free Republic article to defend BryanFromPalatine. He didn't edit or otherwise "appear on" the Free Republic article. He appeared on the Free Republic talk page to post a couple of snarky but not particularly offensive remarks directed at you. Rather mild remarks, in fact. It was at a time when you were kicking BryanFromPalatine when he was down.
DP1976 ... also claimed to be an Intellectual Properties lawyer I presume that you can prove this with a link.
ArlingtonTX, confirmed puppet of Bryan I presume that you can prove this with a link.
ClemsonTiger BLANKED the page where an admin had posted the sockpuppet confirmation of one of Bryan's sockuppets ... So what?
The talk page for that IP address now proclaims that it is indeed ClemsonTiger It proclaims no such thing, it has a picture of a tiger. Has it occurred to you that whomever this is might just be messing with people who are inclined to be amateur Sherlock Holmes? People like you, for example?
Now let's look at the evil ClemsonTiger.
This is not a single purpose account. He has 160 edits, and only two were on the Free Republic talk page. 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.
ClemsonTiger has been a good citizen of Wikipedia. In stark contrast, BenBurch and F.A.A.F.A. have a 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 and block logs, and determine who they'd rather have hanging around. The defense rests.
JohnnyCochran 02:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
“ | 'you're one of the 'brand new editors' (Dec 10) Will you ever learn? I have an unregistered and diverse history of edits of my own going back about a year, [1] mostly relating to Clemson University, my alma mater. Look at the edit history of this page and you'll find my IP address. - DP1976 21:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply | ” |
“ | I agree with RWR8189. Neither the Fahey article nor any material derived from it should be used in the lead. I also oppose the changes that F.A.A.F.A. has just made to the section on the Washington Post's lawsuit. F.A.A.F.A. has just been successful in removing User:DP1976 (who IMHO is an intellectual properties attorney) and 12ptHelvetica (who IMHO is an expert typesetter and forensic document analyst). Their experience and skills were very valuable in examining the more important events in the history of Free Republic for obvious reasons, and their input on this article will be missed. Now that he has removed the experts who have the knowledge to oppose him, F.A.A.F.A. believes that he owns the article. ArlingtonTX 21:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC) reply | ” |
Oh, and, you say "The talk page for that IP address now proclaims that it is indeed ClemsonTiger It proclaims no such thing, it has a picture of a tiger. Has it occurred to you that whomever this is might just be messing with people who are inclined to be amateur Sherlock Holmes? People like you, for example?" Have you looked at the page history? Bryan obviously thought better of outing himself as he then removed it, but HERE is the revision where he edits the page and proclaims it is his address. BenBurch 03:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
It will be interesting to see what the admins do about your accusations, in light of the inoffensive and non-abusive nature of all of my posts, and the Wikipedia recognition that calling someone a "sock puppet" or "meat puppet" is a personal attack. What did I say to you that triggered this vendetta of yours? What was so abusive and "disgusting" about it, Ben? - ClemsonTiger 19:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
ArlingtonTX, confirmed puppet of Bryan I presume that you can prove this with a link.
then editing from a conservative POV on the Iraq War and Far Right articles I presume that you can prove this with a link.
First you (in the guise of DP1978) claim all of the contributions of this IP address I presume that you're referring to DP1976. He didn't claim all of them. He claimed some of them.
Next you are proven to be the same person as BryanFromPalatine, also at this IP address Apparently a false conclusion based strictly on IP address.
Next, ArlingtonTX, another persona of yours invents the fact that you are a an Intellectual Law lawyer He said "IMHO," which means "in my honest opinion." Opinion, my dear Watson, is not necessarily fact.
claim to be from Clemson even though there is NOBODY in the Chicago area who graduated in the year you claim and is working as a lawyer Maybe living in Northwest Indiana, or maybe a Clemson alum who isn't listed in the directory.
Next you claim in the user page for this IP address that it is you HOME IP ADDRESS. Next you speedily remove that boast so that you won't get caught. Maybe he just wanted to try to protect his privacy. That's not an unusual or unreasonable thing to want.
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 your 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.
209.221.240.193 ( talk + · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser ( log)) belongs to a major German-owned auto parts supplier ... Now they're all lawyers working for the law firm. Did anyone claim it was a law firm? I presume that you can prove this with a link. Do you think it might be possible that a "major German-owned auto parts supplier" with 17,000 U.S. employees, might have its own legal department with 100 attorneys and staff members, and its own law library? Do you think such a corporate legal department, serving a company that filed 907 new patents in 2004, might have more than one intellectual properties lawyer hanging around? Maybe even eight or ten? ClemsonTiger's story is very consistent and credible, no matter how much you 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. How does he have the time to do all of these rewrites? My theory is that he writes this stuff at home, and brings it in to the office on a floppy disk. He probably has some sort of bot writing those statistical tables. Then he sits down in the law library, "click, click, click," and it's done.
Now let's turn to what ClemsonTiger has done to you. What has he done that was so terrible, that has evoked such a vicious reaction from the two of you? Show me the worst thing that he ever did, before you filed this sock puppet accusation.
Hit him with your best shot. What did he do to you?
JohnnyCochran 01:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Why not file this under WP:RFCU? Serial violators seem to get faster attention there, like WP:RFCU#Jacob_Peters. - Merzbow 04:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply
More point of research: I did further information on the Clemson alumni in the Illinois and Indiana area who graduated in 1966 from the same source mentioned earlier. In Illinois, one person was from Chicago, and she is an attorney. There are three people who are from Indiana, one in Crawfordsville, one in Huntingburg, and one in Warsaw. Additionally, regarding the user from South Bend, there were a total of nine graduates there with none working for Bosch. The earliest graudate in the list got out in 1990. Chris 15:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply
ArlingtonTX, confirmed puppet of Bryan I presume that you can prove this with a link. Post the link, or admit that you lied.
then editing from a conservative POV on the Iraq War and Far Right articles I presume that you can prove this with a link. Post the link, or admit that you lied.
I suppose someone (preferably an Admin) could call Robert Bosch USA (since you posted a link You posted a link identifying the company when you posted the WHOIS. Don't blame that on me. So are you advocating trying to get him fired, when "someone" calls the company and starts asking these questions? Or would getting him fired just be a happy coincidence? A convenient fringe benefit?
A user's contributions do not matter to this process. To the contrary, they are the meat and potatoes of inquiries like this. Some sock puppets are legal. The ones that aren't are abusive. The abusive sock puppets that we see on this page are single purpose accounts that are created the same day they start serving that single purpose, sometimes just minutes earlier. They attack, disrupt and vandalize. They make no constructive contributions. Their history of contributions tells us everything we need to know. You have admitted that this alleged sock puppet did "NOTHING" of the sort, and the account existed for more than a week before you had any contact with it at all, but you're fighting like hell to get him banned for life. ClemsonTiger has never made a contribution that wasn't constructive.
JohnnyCochran 23:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply
ClemsonTiger (2nd newest suspected sock of Bryan) admits HERE than his first edit to Wikipedia (as IP 209.221.240.193) was Dec 06, 2005 "My first Wikipedia edit was on December 6, 2005" (actually, it was Dec 02, 2005, but that's beside the point) You will find posts from 'ClemsonTiger' (posting as 209.221.240.193) on Dec 06, 2005 HERE and any rational person will agree that these are not the contributions of someone born in 1966, as ClemsonTiger claims, and wants us to believe that he was. The flimsy house of cards has officially collapsed. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine. This case has been confirmed by checkuser. Can we please have the following sanctions applied to this case;
1. Reset of BryanFromPalatine's two week sockpuppeting/3rr/disruption block.
2. Lengthening of that block to three weeks.
3. Permablock on all of the sock puppets mentioned in this process.
4. Blocking the associated IP address for the same duration as the block on BryanFromPalatine so we won't have to come back here again in a couple days.
Thanks admins, you do a mostly thankless job here and I appreciate what you do. -- BenBurch 00:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Dealt with by the checkusers. MER-C 01:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
BryanFromPalatine (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
ClemsonTiger (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log)
209.221.240.193 (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RBLs ·
proxy check ·
block user ·
block log ·
cross-wiki contribs ·
CheckUser (
log)) (added by)
FAAFA
JohnnyCochran (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
block log) (added by
User:BenBurch as that user admits to being a sock in this thread.)
User first appeared during the first sockpuppeting block of BryanFromPalatine. (He is on a second two week block now for more sockpuppeting (and note there has already been one sock banned DURING this block.) Note that user claims to be a Clemson Graduate and an Intellectual Property Lawyer. Bryan's sock puppets at varying times claimed to be from Clemson, and to be IP Lawyers. Now this user has appeared on the Free Republic article to defend BryanFromPalatine. What are the odds? -- BenBurch 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
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 who continually evades blocks by sockpuppeting? BenBurch 00:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm a member in good standing at Wikipedia. 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. I've been watching these two with varying degrees of amusement and disgust for a long time. This has got to be stopped.
Bryan's sock puppets at varying times claimed to be from Clemson, and to be IP Lawyers. I presume that you can prove this with a link.
Now this user has appeared on the Free Republic article to defend BryanFromPalatine. He didn't edit or otherwise "appear on" the Free Republic article. He appeared on the Free Republic talk page to post a couple of snarky but not particularly offensive remarks directed at you. Rather mild remarks, in fact. It was at a time when you were kicking BryanFromPalatine when he was down.
DP1976 ... also claimed to be an Intellectual Properties lawyer I presume that you can prove this with a link.
ArlingtonTX, confirmed puppet of Bryan I presume that you can prove this with a link.
ClemsonTiger BLANKED the page where an admin had posted the sockpuppet confirmation of one of Bryan's sockuppets ... So what?
The talk page for that IP address now proclaims that it is indeed ClemsonTiger It proclaims no such thing, it has a picture of a tiger. Has it occurred to you that whomever this is might just be messing with people who are inclined to be amateur Sherlock Holmes? People like you, for example?
Now let's look at the evil ClemsonTiger.
This is not a single purpose account. He has 160 edits, and only two were on the Free Republic talk page. 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.
ClemsonTiger has been a good citizen of Wikipedia. In stark contrast, BenBurch and F.A.A.F.A. have a 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 and block logs, and determine who they'd rather have hanging around. The defense rests.
JohnnyCochran 02:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
“ | 'you're one of the 'brand new editors' (Dec 10) Will you ever learn? I have an unregistered and diverse history of edits of my own going back about a year, [1] mostly relating to Clemson University, my alma mater. Look at the edit history of this page and you'll find my IP address. - DP1976 21:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC) reply | ” |
“ | I agree with RWR8189. Neither the Fahey article nor any material derived from it should be used in the lead. I also oppose the changes that F.A.A.F.A. has just made to the section on the Washington Post's lawsuit. F.A.A.F.A. has just been successful in removing User:DP1976 (who IMHO is an intellectual properties attorney) and 12ptHelvetica (who IMHO is an expert typesetter and forensic document analyst). Their experience and skills were very valuable in examining the more important events in the history of Free Republic for obvious reasons, and their input on this article will be missed. Now that he has removed the experts who have the knowledge to oppose him, F.A.A.F.A. believes that he owns the article. ArlingtonTX 21:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC) reply | ” |
Oh, and, you say "The talk page for that IP address now proclaims that it is indeed ClemsonTiger It proclaims no such thing, it has a picture of a tiger. Has it occurred to you that whomever this is might just be messing with people who are inclined to be amateur Sherlock Holmes? People like you, for example?" Have you looked at the page history? Bryan obviously thought better of outing himself as he then removed it, but HERE is the revision where he edits the page and proclaims it is his address. BenBurch 03:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
It will be interesting to see what the admins do about your accusations, in light of the inoffensive and non-abusive nature of all of my posts, and the Wikipedia recognition that calling someone a "sock puppet" or "meat puppet" is a personal attack. What did I say to you that triggered this vendetta of yours? What was so abusive and "disgusting" about it, Ben? - ClemsonTiger 19:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply
ArlingtonTX, confirmed puppet of Bryan I presume that you can prove this with a link.
then editing from a conservative POV on the Iraq War and Far Right articles I presume that you can prove this with a link.
First you (in the guise of DP1978) claim all of the contributions of this IP address I presume that you're referring to DP1976. He didn't claim all of them. He claimed some of them.
Next you are proven to be the same person as BryanFromPalatine, also at this IP address Apparently a false conclusion based strictly on IP address.
Next, ArlingtonTX, another persona of yours invents the fact that you are a an Intellectual Law lawyer He said "IMHO," which means "in my honest opinion." Opinion, my dear Watson, is not necessarily fact.
claim to be from Clemson even though there is NOBODY in the Chicago area who graduated in the year you claim and is working as a lawyer Maybe living in Northwest Indiana, or maybe a Clemson alum who isn't listed in the directory.
Next you claim in the user page for this IP address that it is you HOME IP ADDRESS. Next you speedily remove that boast so that you won't get caught. Maybe he just wanted to try to protect his privacy. That's not an unusual or unreasonable thing to want.
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 your 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.
209.221.240.193 ( talk + · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser ( log)) belongs to a major German-owned auto parts supplier ... Now they're all lawyers working for the law firm. Did anyone claim it was a law firm? I presume that you can prove this with a link. Do you think it might be possible that a "major German-owned auto parts supplier" with 17,000 U.S. employees, might have its own legal department with 100 attorneys and staff members, and its own law library? Do you think such a corporate legal department, serving a company that filed 907 new patents in 2004, might have more than one intellectual properties lawyer hanging around? Maybe even eight or ten? ClemsonTiger's story is very consistent and credible, no matter how much you 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. How does he have the time to do all of these rewrites? My theory is that he writes this stuff at home, and brings it in to the office on a floppy disk. He probably has some sort of bot writing those statistical tables. Then he sits down in the law library, "click, click, click," and it's done.
Now let's turn to what ClemsonTiger has done to you. What has he done that was so terrible, that has evoked such a vicious reaction from the two of you? Show me the worst thing that he ever did, before you filed this sock puppet accusation.
Hit him with your best shot. What did he do to you?
JohnnyCochran 01:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Why not file this under WP:RFCU? Serial violators seem to get faster attention there, like WP:RFCU#Jacob_Peters. - Merzbow 04:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply
More point of research: I did further information on the Clemson alumni in the Illinois and Indiana area who graduated in 1966 from the same source mentioned earlier. In Illinois, one person was from Chicago, and she is an attorney. There are three people who are from Indiana, one in Crawfordsville, one in Huntingburg, and one in Warsaw. Additionally, regarding the user from South Bend, there were a total of nine graduates there with none working for Bosch. The earliest graudate in the list got out in 1990. Chris 15:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply
ArlingtonTX, confirmed puppet of Bryan I presume that you can prove this with a link. Post the link, or admit that you lied.
then editing from a conservative POV on the Iraq War and Far Right articles I presume that you can prove this with a link. Post the link, or admit that you lied.
I suppose someone (preferably an Admin) could call Robert Bosch USA (since you posted a link You posted a link identifying the company when you posted the WHOIS. Don't blame that on me. So are you advocating trying to get him fired, when "someone" calls the company and starts asking these questions? Or would getting him fired just be a happy coincidence? A convenient fringe benefit?
A user's contributions do not matter to this process. To the contrary, they are the meat and potatoes of inquiries like this. Some sock puppets are legal. The ones that aren't are abusive. The abusive sock puppets that we see on this page are single purpose accounts that are created the same day they start serving that single purpose, sometimes just minutes earlier. They attack, disrupt and vandalize. They make no constructive contributions. Their history of contributions tells us everything we need to know. You have admitted that this alleged sock puppet did "NOTHING" of the sort, and the account existed for more than a week before you had any contact with it at all, but you're fighting like hell to get him banned for life. ClemsonTiger has never made a contribution that wasn't constructive.
JohnnyCochran 23:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC) reply
ClemsonTiger (2nd newest suspected sock of Bryan) admits HERE than his first edit to Wikipedia (as IP 209.221.240.193) was Dec 06, 2005 "My first Wikipedia edit was on December 6, 2005" (actually, it was Dec 02, 2005, but that's beside the point) You will find posts from 'ClemsonTiger' (posting as 209.221.240.193) on Dec 06, 2005 HERE and any rational person will agree that these are not the contributions of someone born in 1966, as ClemsonTiger claims, and wants us to believe that he was. The flimsy house of cards has officially collapsed. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine. This case has been confirmed by checkuser. Can we please have the following sanctions applied to this case;
1. Reset of BryanFromPalatine's two week sockpuppeting/3rr/disruption block.
2. Lengthening of that block to three weeks.
3. Permablock on all of the sock puppets mentioned in this process.
4. Blocking the associated IP address for the same duration as the block on BryanFromPalatine so we won't have to come back here again in a couple days.
Thanks admins, you do a mostly thankless job here and I appreciate what you do. -- BenBurch 00:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Dealt with by the checkusers. MER-C 01:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply