Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine

message: ::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.  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: To answer Daniel's question, Bryan has admitted that on a particular day, all edits from the 209 IP address were his.  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Block evasion, as is currently possibly occuring with Bryan, is a reason to run a check and/or block. Code F for those of you playing along at home. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "The ClemsonTiger check"

message: Can it be explained why 209.221.240.193 was not blocked for sockpuppetry? Badagnani (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  209.221.240.193