Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BryanFromPalatine (4th)


 * 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:BryanFromPalatine

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer

(added by) FAAFA (added by User:BenBurch as that user admits to being a sock in this thread.)
 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by: BenBurch 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * Evidence


 * More evidence


 * is a sockpuppet of checkuser-confirmed (multiple violations) puppeteer BryanFromPalatine. 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 . 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  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.


 * More


 * 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


 * Submitted by: Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * MORE CONCLUSIVE PROOF

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)

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)


 * Comments

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?


 * Reposting


 * 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

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)


 * So, you advocate breaking Wikipedia rules to make a WP:POINT? Nice.  I think we have already established that this fellow is using the same IP address as a blocked BryanFromPalatine sockpuppet as determined by checkuser.  I don't think more needs to be said do you?  Now, yes, I can show you where they claimed to be IP lawyers and to be from Clemson;


 * '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, 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)

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)


 * both from Talk:Free_Republic/Archive5


 * Finally, I doubt you are anybody other than the sockpuppeteer in question here. Pardon my lack of AGF, but you yourself admit to breaking two rules. BenBurch 03:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * Notice: He also admits again to that IP on Jan 02 "I'm an alumnus of Clemson University, and I've already edited that page many times (using the IP address 209.221.240.193 ) before registering here." LINK HERE - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Point of information: As an actual alumni of Clemson University (1994), I checked the most recent alumni directory that I have (Clemson University Alumni Directory 2003. (2003). Purchase, NY: Bernard C. Harris Publishing Company, Inc. pp. 1192-4), I found six people from Illinois who worked in the legal profession, none from Palatine, Illinois and none who were 1966 graduates as shown (The closest to 1966 was a 1969 graduate from Chicago.). Five of the six were in Chicago while the other one was from Belleville.). Chris 14:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks - Now this is purely speculative, but how likely is it that that a 1966 college grad would be reading and editing the page Comparison_of_seventh-generation_game_consoles ? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 15:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm using a computer terminal in our law library. We have roughly 100 attorneys and staff members, including at least three Clemson alumni, with access to this computer. (It's sometimes called "networking." Clemson alumni often contact other Clemson alumni, using the Alumni Directory, when they're looking for a job. Nothing sinister about it at all.) Some live in Illinois, some in northwest Indiana. All of these, as well as various interns and visitors (such as attorneys at retained law firms, and even our opposing counsel, as an occasional professional courtesy) have had access to this computer. Perhaps one of our college interns edited the "comparison of seventh generation game consoles" article. I'll also add that the Alumni Directory is not an exhaustive resource; there are many Clemson alumni who do not appear in the directory. Some just don't want to be dunned for donations to our alma mater. I'm uncomfortable with disclosing any more information than that; but I feel it should be sufficient, in light of my contribution history since registering at Wikipedia, and the non-abusive nature of all of my edits here, to put this inquiry to rest. - ClemsonTiger 17:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So, Mr Lawyer, let me give a summation; First you (in the guise of DP1978) claim all of the contributions of this IP address, and talk of your edits from Clemson.  Next you are proven to be the same person as BryanFromPalatine, also at this IP address, and to have edited contributions which you signed using that other persona, also from this IP address.  Next, ArlingtonTX, another persona of yours invents the fact that you are a an Intellectual Law lawyer and laments your departure from Wikipedia as DP1978.  Then you register this account, and 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, and you cannot remember a classmate when quizzed about it on your talk page.  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.  Next you show up in the talk page of an article you have never edited just to defend BryanFromPalatine.  Next you claim that this IP address ISN'T yours and you are using a computer in a Library (because you financially bereft lawyers cannot have your own computers?) and that the contributions (and vandalism) associated with this IP address are NOT yours.  Next yet another sock puppet shows up in this page to defend YOU.  --- Yep, you are right.  This makes perfect logical sense.  Assuming, of course, that I just fell down a rabbit hole. --BenBurch 18:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In the practice of law, one of the telltale signs of a losing argument is a refusal to address the strongest point of the opponent's argument. What do you have to say about this? Anything at all? - ClemsonTiger 19:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Clearly busy work to give you a colorable legitimacy. Anybody learns from mistakes, and the best way to make a sock seem real is to put in a tiny amount of work editing other things for a week or so.  You are not fooling anybody, Bryan, and what you are doing disgusts me. --BenBurch 19:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And he still  couldn't pull it off. Editing his puppeteer's page on his very first day, claiming that "Freepers are a scourge" on his user page while claiming to be a liberal then editing from a conservative POV on the Iraq War and Far Right articles were all dead giveaways. "He coulda been a contender" - Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * Nice try, but that is what this process here is all about; Calling somebody a sock or meat puppet.  And you are a sock puppet.  You were already ruled to be a sock puppet by checkuser, in fact.  I had thought that there was a small chance that you might just be acting in collusion (a meat puppet) but your recent edits to the FR talk page dispelled that.  You started right up where Bryan left off on the Liberal Moles gig.  You have the lamest excuses for why all your socks use the same computers too;  In a Library;  In the company Internet;  In the same cube taking turns.  Disgusting.  --BenBurch 19:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * MORE : Bryan/Clemson/DP1976/Arlington/Johnny/et al : Wrote "I'm using a computer terminal in our law library. We have roughly 100 attorneys and staff members, including at least three Clemson alumni, with access to this computer." The problem with that 'tall tale' is that belongs to a major German-owned auto parts supplier - the one DP1976 and two other BFP socks previously claimed they worked for - where DP1976 claimed that they all edited Wikipedia as some sort of 'tag team'. Now they're all lawyers working for the law firm. What's next -- rocket scientists posting from NASA? Brain surgeons posting from Johns Hopkins? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Conjoined twins? --BenBurch 21:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * More like conjoined quintuplets - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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.

 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)


 * Well 'Johnny'. I suppose someone (preferably an Admin) could call Robert Bosch USA (since you posted a link to your employer, I guess I can use the name) and ask them if they have '100 lawyers and staff' and a 'law library', where that 'library' might be located, and if, like you previously claimed, all the thousands of Bosch employees would be posting through one IP (209.221.240.193), when records show that Bosch has a NetRange from: 209.221.240.0 to 209.221.255.255. I wonder if they could even track that IP to a distinct location and maybe even a single user? If an Admin wanted to call Bosch and ask them those questions, I assume they would call the Farmington Hills corporate headquarters?  Tel: (248) 876-1000? How's the bass fishing in South Carolina? Do you happen to know? Thanks. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way 'Johnny' : You claimed "All of these, as well as various interns and visitors (such as attorneys at retained law firms, and even our opposing counsel, as an occasional professional courtesy) have had access to this computer." Who would that "opposing counsel" be... BorgWarner? LOL! I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, and neither did the admins who will be examining your preposterous claims. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A user's contributions do not matter to this process. What matters to this process is that the user is a verifiable sockpuppet of another user who is currently blocked for two weeks (a very long block) for sockpuppetry, 3RR violations, and general disruption.  This is about obeying the house rules of this institution.  If you cannot do that, you should leave.  If you will not leave, this process exists to enforce an involuntary separation upon you.  Unless, of course, Bryan, that you think that you are above the rules?  What did you, wearing the ClemsonTiger sock do to me to warrant this response?  NOTHING, other than having broken the rules by evading a proper block and by being a fictitious suck puppet.  Sock puppetry isn't "clever" or "37337" ("elite") or anything other than LYING.  You disgust me. --BenBurch 03:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not file this under WP:RFCU? Serial violators seem to get faster attention there, like WP:RFCU. - Merzbow 04:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea - thanks. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * That's odd! Bryan/Clemson/Johnny/Arlington/DP1976/Helvetica/IP209 claimed that there were"at least three" Clemson grads all working at the mysterious Bosch facility with the 'law library' in Indiana (the one with 100 lawyers and support staff -- that overnight, decreased in size to eight or nine lawyers!). Your alumni directory must certainly be incorrect, or out of date, or these three grads, being Very Important People asked not to be listed so they wouldn't be 'dunned' for donations! ROFLMAO ! - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it is correct. You wanted to know what was on there and you got it. These directories listed for all alumnus who live in those areas mentioned as of 2003. I do not know what the current status of these people yet at the time. I am just going on what best information that I have. I am not trying to defend this person. I am just trying to present the facts. I did not list these graduates out of respect for their privacy which you can understand why. Chris 21:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Chris: My comments were meant as tongue-in-cheek satire about his outlandish claims, but satire doen't always work on the www. I'm deeply appreciative of your help and desire to keep Clemson's name unsullied by the acts of one troll. Best regards. Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Chris. Hopefully some admin will come along and stick a fork in this investigation soon, because it's done. --BenBurch 20:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * Bryan/Clemson/Johnny/Arlington/DP1976/Helvetica/IP209/Mishawaka/Hums/Devin/Andrew, and John Does 1-99, Sorry, but I don't plan on wasting any of my time responsing to your increasingly delusional posts, except to point out that Bryan using a sockpuppet to avoid a two week block is grounds for permanemt banishment, espcially as he has peviously been convicted of several sockpuppetry offenses. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am done with this too. --BenBurch 00:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * THE MOST DAMNING EVIDENCE YET

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)

Case Confirmed
Please see 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)

Dealt with by the checkusers. MER-C 01:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Conclusions