Note: This report is copied to here from Lar's talk page, at Lar's suggestion. Jehochman Talk 14:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The sections below are broken down as straighforwardly as I could manage when detailing out all of this information for the RFAR, but some of it was added after the fact, as new connections and evidence were revealed. Note the references to hostipinfo, the website, below. Previously, BryanFromPalatine was an ultra-disruptive sockmaster that was dedicated to advocacy related to Free Republic, and then a whole laundry list of American Conservative political subjects, such as Peter Roskam and Rachel Marsden. He's played a role either directly or illicitly in several obnoxious RFARs and major messes for Wikipedia. As previously seen in various cases, he appears to have fairly wide access to a variety of IP ranges, but almost all of them are either in or directly adjacent to the small towns of Palatine, Elmhurst, and Hoffman Estates, in Illinois. All of these towns are within a 5-15 minute drive of each other, depending on whether you happen to look at Google Maps, Yahoo, Mapquest, or what have you. Trivial travel time. BryanFromPalatine, aka User:DeanHinnen, is openly 'from' Palatine, IL.

Here is where it gets interesting: based on the more detailed analysis below, virtually *all* of the IPs below are either from, or directly adjacent to, all of these towns in Illinois. Again, on the "worst kept secrets", if you Google around for Bryan or Dean Hinnen, "Bosch" (the owner of the 209.221.240.193 IP), you'll find a news site with a reprinted email from a Bryan Dean Hinnen emailing from a Bosch IP address. Specifically, 209.221.240.193. The insanely wide array of Sprint Wireless IP address (a forest of them on the talk histories of Free Republic and Waterboarding) seem to indicate that BryanFromPalatine has either a smart phone or laptop with an account on Sprint Wireless. If it's anything like my laptop, it takes all of ten seconds to disconnect and reconnect on wireless. If he has a dedicated wireless provider, its entirely possible that he gets a new dynamic IP each time. Some (mostly the people on the list of names/IPs above) have suggested that "anyone" in the world gets these IPs. However, that's shot down by the fact that only people who speak in a legal tone of voice, and all with the same exact interests, all happen to use Sprint Wireless, with the same narrow political focus and agendas.

I poked around on the Virgil Griffith Wikiscanner for these IP ranges, and couldn't find ANY evidence of wider usage that would indicate other users. So, the sock and abuse investigation here is based on equal parts IP technical info, and flagrant DUCKing of behavior, tone, and language. Please let me know how you need this broken down further or whatever else you may need. Note that a variety of the Sprint Wireless accounts, as well as Neutral Good, endless have fluffed and primped up Shimbumi2, to the point of giving him a now deleted RFA (detailed below). Shibumi2 was caught on that Goosecreek RFAR, and he mailed with Alison directly on that. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to say that Alison alternately vindicated or exonerated Shibumi2 of any wrongdoing with legal language. Every time I've made these points, they have like clockwork. However, Alison pointed out expressly in the unblock and RFAR workpage that there was no exoneration. Please let me know what else you may need. For more technical evidence, I could gather more IPs from the talk pages, but take your pick, especially the Free Republic talk page history--it's all these same narrow Sprint Wireless ranges. Lawrence § t/e 18:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BryanFromPalatine sockpuppetry connection

Based on information from Black Kite's research in his opening statement. There is an extensive history of disruptive sockpuppetry related to conservative issues, and Free Republic happening here. User:BryanFromPalatine is still active on Wikipedia. Please review:

Consider:

Evidence that 209.221.240.193 is User:BryanFromPalatine

Evidence that Neutral Good is BryanFromPalatine or his meatpuppet

Evidence that the Cloud of Sprint called "Bob" and related accounts are BryanFromPalatine or his meatpuppets

Evidence that Samurai Commuter is BryanFromPalatine

Evidence that The Friendly Ghost (talk · contribs) is BFP

More evidence they're all BFP

Thats it

Let me know what else you need. Lawrence § t/e 18:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you think this should be on the official RFCU page instead of here? you formatted it just like it's something for there. ++Lar: t/c 13:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he needs the truth instead. Neutral Good (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that you're helping matters with this sort of commentary? CUs are human too and not perfectly immune to prejudging things, as hard as we may try not to be. Would you rather the CU being asked to look into this matter be predisposed to view you as disruptive, or predisposed to view you as helpful? ++Lar: t/c 13:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to be helpful to you, Lar, by pointing out that Lawrence Cohen is not being honest with you. Like his work on Waterboarding, this consists of carefully calculated distortion and blurring of important distinctions. Wouldn't you want to be told if an accuser isn't accurately representing the facts? Neutral Good (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Good has announced a wikibreak Eschoir (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Cohen is lying

Samurai Commuter wasn't banned as a sockpuppet. He was banned as a disruptive SPA. Lawrence Cohen lied about him when he claimed that Samurai Commuter was banned as a sockpuppet. That's just one of the many lies and distortions that Lawrence Cohen has posted here. Lar, please look at the evidence I posted on the Waterboarding RFAR Evidence page. I revealed two more of his distortions there. This is indicative of Lawrence's efforts here: lies and distortions. Neutral Good (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that Justin88 (talk · contribs) is BFP

Evidence that Gt2008 (talk · contribs) is BFP

Oh dear. Gt2008 looks like a Freeper. We shoot those on sight, right? Neutral Good (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

results

I'll look into that and let you know. ++Lar: t/c 05:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above. ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, what about a finding on the Samurai Commuter=Bryan question, since Lawrence stated with absolute certainty that he was blocked as a sockpuppet of Bryan's? Also, I just noticed that you recommend a "block on behavior." I admit that I do not respond well to relentless false accusations of sockpuppetry. If Lawrence and his little group of friends will accept this result and address content rather than making more false accusations, you will see a remarkable improvement in my behavior. I guarantee it. Neutral Good (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If { Neutral Good == Samurai Commuter } == unlikely and
{ Neutral Good == BryanFromPalatine } == inconclusive then
{ BryanFromPalatine == Samurai Commuter } == inconclusive by transitive closure.
As for the rest of your statements... tell me another one. ++Lar: t/c 05:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Lar. Based on the evidence available, there is a strong probability that Neutral Good and BryanFromPalatine are one in the same. Even if they are not, Neutral Good's editing has been detrimental to the project, and an indefinite block would be appropriate. If the evidence linked from here was presented to me in a suspected sock puppet report, and I were uninvolved, I would block. Jehochman Talk 00:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should this be presented to AN? Lawrence § t/e 00:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have advised Lar of the sequela. Perhaps he can provide useful advice. Jehochman Talk 00:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:AE recently (this diff gets you to the right time period, there may be some relevant edits after it) ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 25 February 2008 (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[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 18:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 Delisted.  Additional information needed, including a code letter. Please see the instructions here for information on acceptable request criterion. Anthøny 19:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, fixed. I'll relist. Lawrence Cohen 19:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 17,000 other people working at Bosch too. I'm not any of the three people you've mentioned. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: From looking at the previous RFCUs below on this IP, it appears that this same practice has happened repeatedly, with BryanFromPalatine making multiple accounts, and socking between a combination of logged and logged out edits. Would it be possible to block anonymous editing and account creation from this IP, due to ongoing abuse? How is that normally done? The current batch of editing from this IP is right in the camp of being a BryanFromPalatine meatpuppet, that I can see. AGF, and all, but do we have only this IP's word to go by that all 17,000 users use this IP? Lawrence Cohen 21:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This editor, Lawrence Cohen, is trying to win a content dispute by making false accusations. His previous fishing expedition was just two days ago and came back with the result of "Unrelated." Consider the source. There should be serious consequences for making these false accusations. Maybe a one-week block and a ban from the article. 68.29.174.61 (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined - whatever about the merits of the case, the three named accounts are quite old and thus  Stale so there is little that checkuser can hope to achieve here - Alison ❤ 07:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BryanFromPalatine[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 03:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This user has much the same POV as BFP, but due to the content, it is possibly just another from FR. However, it can't hurt to check. Prodego talk 03:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can too. Checkuser is not for fishing. Besides which, we've not banned the general class of Freepers, just a specific one. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BryanFromPalatine[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 06:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User's first edit was to BryanFromPalatine's user page and seems to be editing the same class of topics user's ClemsonTiger sock puppet edited (WW-II History).

Click "view" in the gray box to see prior requests, with a number of confirmed sockpuppets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenBurch (talk • contribs)

Note: CT edited baseball articles, not WWII articles; TFG's edits were to "wikify" an article, rather than add or change any core information; and TFG removed a link to BFP's full name, home address and home telephone number that was posted using an open proxy. Removing it protected both BFP and Wikipedia. This history is constructive and not consistent with others. BenBurch's RFCU is unsupported by a proper WP:SSP investigation and should be denied. H4672600 20:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Based on edit history, H4672600 appears to be BryanFromPalatine. --BenBurch 00:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Based on the fact that BenBurch has just been blocked for 24 hours for mischaracterization, can you believe a word he's said? Dino 03:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For an indication that these IP addresses in question are being used by other, very real people (not sock puppets) for legitimate purposes such as dispute mediation and resolution, Mackensen is encouraged to read this. BenBurch has successfully been using WP:SSP and related templates (as well as WP:RFCU) to intimidate and eventually get rid of anyone who disagrees with him. See this. Dino 19:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A coordinated attack on Wikipedia by an army of sockpuppets ... [Refactored to protect personal info Dino 21:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)] In any case, even if Dean is real and a separate person from Bryan, he is acting as a Meat Puppet here and elsewhere in the limited time since he was unbanned, and all of the other accounts blocked so far absolutely were found to be sockpuppets. This affair stinks to high heaven. --BenBurch 01:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Only one "of the other accounts so far absolutely were found to be sockpuppets": ClemsonTiger. 12ptHelvetica was described as "possible." None of the others (Kynouria and ArlingtonTX) have even had a Check User done on them. BenBurch is mischaracterizing again and he was blocked for his mischaracterizations. Dino 03:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Deferred Mackensen who handled the last request. Essjay (Talk) 06:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed except for Fensteren. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even bothered to read this? I will cut and paste the relevant sections for your review below.

Begin cut and paste

This account was initially blocked for being a BryanFromPalistine sockpuppet. After investigations and substantial and very civil discussion with this user on unblock-en-l, our opinion is that this person is Bryan's brother and not actually a sockpuppet. Furthermore, although the edits looked like meatpuppetry, they were actually legitimate and good faith attempts to remove libel from Wikipedia articles. To avoid even the appearance of meatpuppetry, this user has agreed not to edit the article, Free Republic, directly but may still participate in that article's talk page and is specifically encouraged to report libel on that page at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (assuming that is the right forum for the libel). Once again, this person showed nothing but civility during the investigation on unblock-en-l despite the time it took. He has our apologies for the block. Dean, please feel free to leave a brief note on the talk page for Free Republic referencing this message if you feel it appropriate. --Yamla 18:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Yamla's analysis. Dean: If posts to the Free Republic talk page aren't getting corrections done fast enough, please let me know, and I'll try to help transcribe stuff if there is clear consensus for it. Long term I'd like to see this self imposed restriction become liftable as long as we don't have any issues around the editing and content... ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
End cut and paste

Lar and Yamla are two of the most senior administrators at Wikipedia. They were joined in this unanimous Unblock-en-l decision, after an extensive, exhaustive and time-consuming review of the overwhelming evidence in my favor, by Luna Santin, another senior administrator.

Josh, please read my e-mail. Dino 20:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: I was asked to make an analysis. I made my analysis. It's not up to me (that is, me-the-checkuser) to parse the meaning of the analysis; I'm asked whether the underlying IPs bear a pattern that is congruent with sockpuppeteering. Such a congruence may be treated as prima facie evidence of socks, but it's rebuttable; however, it's not my job to deal with the rebuttal, and this is not the place for it either. I'm acting as a fair witness here; what I see is what you get. (Except for the stuff I'm not supposed to let you get.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... and this is not the place for it either.
Then what is the place for it? Dino 22:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno for sure. AN/I might be appropriate. But since you're not asking for work from the checkuser team now, there's nothing to continue here. (If you want to question my actions or decisions regarding this, the talk page would be OK.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


BryanFromPalatine[edit]

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

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]

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]

MORE EVIDENCE: ClemsonTiger 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 house of cards has officially collapsed. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: this case page was growing exponentially with discussion. In the interests of fairness, everything but the request has been moved to the talk page. This includes a response by the accused, which is an attempt to explain something the checkusers may find relevant. All discussion not made by a checkuser or clerk procedurally-related to this case should be continued on the talk page. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. Mackensen (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Sanction
Since the sockpuppeteer was using this sock puppet to get around a two-week block, I request the following sanctions;
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]
 Clerk note: That's not a job for RFCU - instead, WP:ANI. I've cross-posted it to there. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC) It appears Dmcdevit blocked Bryan indef and ClemsonTiger as well. However, as a note, requests for sanctions, especially in contested cases like this, go to WP:ANI - please see WP:RFCU/C/G#Enforcement. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 03:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, kind sir! BenBurch 03:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


BryanFromPalatine[edit]

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

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.


More