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.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

12ptHelvetica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

208.250.137.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

DP1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) new

209.221.240.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) new

Report submission by

BenBurch 04:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP user 208 submitted by F.A.A.F.A. 06:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User with no other edits showed up right after User:BryanFromPalatine received a 24 hour 3RR block for reversions to Free Republic to defend BryanFromPalatine in Talk:Free Republic where he used the same language as BryanFromPalatine and was also joined by an IP user saying the exact same things. Note that BryanFromPalatine was not happy with his block as evidenced by several removals of the block notice from his talk page that were restored by the blocking Admin.

I concur with Mr. Burch. I found it mighty suspicious as well. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that DNSstuff.com reports that 208.250.137.2 is in Palatine, IL, the same place that BryanFromPalatine claims to be from... --BenBurch 10:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The accused has already removed the notice from his talk page once. I reverted that removal. --BenBurch 01:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 70,000 people in Palatine and hundreds of thousands more who pass through. The city sits astride four major commuter routes (two train lines and two expressways) that link the city of Chicago with the heavily populated Northwest Suburbs. Since you're from Elgin, you're probably one of the people who pass through. And that isn't my IP address. You have proven nothing except that there's another person in Palatine, Illinois who is interested in this dispute -- one who is an expert typesetter, and got involved in this dispute even before I did. At first, his interest was limited to the typography issues in the Killian memo discussion and he brought it to my attention on November 16. Furthermore, as administrator William M. Connolley observed, that IP address wasn't used to edit the main page of the article; so even if it was me, it wasn't used to evade the 24-hour block.

If you'd bother to look at the actual sequence of events on November 16, you just might notice that the expert typesetter from Palatine, who evidently posts from both 208.250.137.2 and 68.253.143.93 but hadn't yet created a Wiki account, was posting here before me. I wasn't the one who posted before him. So I guess I'm the "meat puppet." Now when you say "he used the same language as BryanFromPalatine," if you're referring to the English language, I concur. -- BryanFromPalatine 05:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Bryan whether he was interested in this discussion back on November 16. I am posting from Palatine but I'm not Bryan. False accusations like this are the bread and butter of the Internet. If I didn't laugh at people like you when these false accusations are made, you wouldn't serve much purpose at all. 12ptHelvetica 00:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It would appear that the accused have stipulated to the charges as WP:SOCK and ArbCom rulings treat Meatpuppets (Single purpose accounts that show up just to influence consensus on a particular subject) exactly the same as Sockpuppets (Multiple accounts by a single person to do the same). --BenBurch 04:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cute. For one thing, you're distorting the definition of a "Meatpuppet." A Meatpuppet "shows up" at the urging of another member, to influence consensus in the same way as that member. 12ptHelvetica had no idea how I was going to vote. At the time he directed my attention to the article, he simply knew that I am interested in the Killian memo controversy. My position evolved in response to your stubborn refusal to acknowledge the fact that they are forgeries, Ben; and in response to such remarks from you as "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on." And I suspect it was much the same for 12pt.

For another thing, as you are well aware, there are many conservatives who don't like the way Jim Robinson runs Free Republic. In fact, there are some communities of banned Freepers who harbor at least as much animosity toward FR as you do. Have you eliminated the possibility that either one, or both of us feel that way, but simply don't wish to continue to allow you and FAAFA to make the FR article into a hit piece? And for a third thing, your charge is that 12pt is the sock puppet, not me. -- BryanFromPalatine 12:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original version of above comment-

“

Cute. For one thing, you're distorting the definition of a "Meatpuppet." A Meatpuppet "shows up" at the urging of another member, to influence consensus in the same way as that member. 12ptHelvetica had no idea how I was going to vote. At the time he directed my attention to the article, he simply knew that I am interested in the Killian memo controversy. My position evolved in response to your stubborn refusal to acknowledge the fact that they are forgeries, ands I suspect it was the same for 12pt. For another thing, as you are well aware, there are many conservatives who don't like the way Jim Robinson runs Free Republic. In fact, there are some communities of banned Freepers who harbor at least as much animosity toward FR as you do. Have you eliminated the possibility that either one, or both of us feel that way, but simply don't wish to continue to allow you and FAAFA to make the FR article into a hit piece? And for a third thing, your charge is that 12pt is the sock puppet, not me. -- BryanFromPalatine 12:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

”

comment - For the present proceeding it really doesn't matter which account is the sockpuppet or the pupppetmaster. You are both meatpuppets at the minimum, and as single purpose accounts are NOT members of the Wikipedia community of editors by ArbCom ruling. You have stipulated to the charges against you. --BenBurch 14:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Response

You are both meatpuppets at the minimum ... In your dreams. I was invited to look at the discussion and the article on November 16. That's all. 12ptHelvetica didn't even expect me to participate. He certainly didn't expect me to start editing, or to set up an account. He just thought I might be interested in reading it. I didn't expect him to continue participating in that discussion either, and he didn't set up an account until December 9. This falls short of the minimum requirements of even the broadly expansive definition of a meatpuppet used by Wikipedia: WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets. "A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion." That didn't take place here. Your animosity, as evidenced by such hastily deleted remarks as "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on," is influencing your judgment, Ben. It influenced the development of 12pt's participation at Wikipedia, as well as my own. Equally important, it's influencing your relationship with the truth.

The accusation that mine is a "single purpose account" is also inaccurate, because I've participated in discussions of other articles and made edits of other articles. I haven't even had a registered account here for one month; and during the period between November 16 and December 7, I didn't even participate. Given enough time, I will once again be working on a wide range of articles. If I have an "agenda," it is to ensure that NPOV articles are created. As it happened, I decided to start using my registered account with the article about Free Republic, which clearly violated WP:NPOV thanks to the efforts of you and FAAFA.

Regarding the accusation that 12pt is also a single user account, please click on the link above for 12pt's contributions before he registered, from IP address 208.250.137.2 -- or just click on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/208.250.137.2 Using that IP address, 12pt has edited articles about Plauen; Michael Milken; Arcola, Illinois; The Actors Studio; Closet drama; Concordia University at Austin; and a broad range of other topics over the past 2-1/2 years. Regarding my own unregistered contributions here, take a look at Constitutional theocracy or just click on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/205.179.211.30 I made several edits from IP address 205.179.211.30 on July 14 which didn't create even the slightest amount of controversy. What does constitutional theocracy have to do with Free Republic? What possible "agenda" would all of these edits to both Constitutional theocracy and Free Republic serve? I have also edited a broad range of other articles over the past three years, from another IP address which I refuse to disclose, since I'd like to believe that I still have a right to privacy.

I've been reading Wikipedia for about three years -- and editing articles without creating an account almost as long -- and the FR article was unlike any other article at Wikipedia I've ever seen; in particular, it was very much unlike the articles about organizations you like, and in which you've participated as an editor, such as Democratic Underground. Your real motive in pursuing this sock puppet accusation is painfully obvious.

Here's a little passage from WP:SOCK#When questions arise:

However, simply having made few edits is not evidence of sock puppetry on its own, and if you call a new user a sock puppet without justification, he or she will probably be insulted and get a negative impression of Wikipedia. Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start participating in Wikipedia for the same reason, particularly in controversial areas ...

I want you to read that, Ben. Read it slowly for comprehension. Learn it. Memorize it. Have it silk-screened on a T-shirt and wear it. Also, I suggest that you read the last couple of posts at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry under "Permitted meatpuppetry." Yes, Ben, believe it or not, some activities that would satisfy Wiki's broad, expansive definition of "meatpuppetry" are permitted. -- BryanFromPalatine 03:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan: You wrote: I've been reading Wikipedia for about three years -- and editing articles without creating an account almost as long -- and the FR article was unlike any other article at Wikipedia I've ever seen; in particular, it was very much unlike the articles about organizations you like and in which you've participated as an editor, such as Democratic Underground.

If you've been editing for almost three years why did you repeatedly remove an admin's 3rr warning? Your claim that the FR article is unlike any other is documentably false. All the articles on notable liberal webforums include criticism and comments from the posters themselves that intend to portray a negative impression. The difference is that no one DU or Kos has been arrested for sending terrorist threats to 13 people, and the forums don't have a documented history of having members post death threats, and calls to violence, like Free Republic. I can understand that as a Freeper you want to suppress the truth about these issues, but they're well documented and notable. - F.A.A.F.A. 07:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you've been 'editing' for almost three years why did you repeatedly remove an admin's 3rr warning? Because I've never been drawn into a revert war before. As a result, I was unaware that there was a rule against more than three reverts in a 24-hour period, and I was unaware that we weren't supposed to remove such warnings. Many of my edits over the years consisted of spelling and punctuation corrections. Many more consisted of easily documented aspects of history etc., generally non-contentious topics and I have always posted links to reliable online sources. These have elicited no controversy whatsoever until now. I never even received a warning before about anything. So I was unfamiliar with the etiquette surrounding reverts and these notices. You and your friend BenBurch seem remarkably familiar with them, in light of your short time here. Your claim that the FR article is unlike any other is documentably false ... That remark and the discussion that would follow belong on the Talk:Free Republic page, not this one. Now request that CheckUser and let's wrap this up. If you're not going to request CheckUser, we're done here.

By the way, I want the two of you to read the following from [1] :

Also be aware that sometimes, users who appear to work with a common agenda are in fact not sockpuppets (one user, multiple accounts), but multiple users collaborating with an agenda in an objectively unacceptable manner. (NB This does not mean 'holding opinions with which you disagree').

Such groups can be treated as sockpuppets if the breach of policy is evidenced and visible, but should be very carefully investigated first to clarify the evidence. Please see WP:SOCK for more information, and visit Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for assistance if you suspect inappropriate conduct by a group of users. The term meatpuppet may be seen as highly offensive to the people concerned, and should be avoided if possible. It may be acceptable to say that an account is a meatpuppet - although this is accusing people of acting in bad faith - but a person cannot be.

I repeat: the alleged sockpuppet account, 12ptHelvetica was not used to evade the block or otherwise violate Wikipedia policy. We were only 'holding opinions with which you disagree.' -- BryanFromPalatine 01:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

GO AHEAD AND REQUEST CHECKUSER. MAKE MY DAY. -- BryanFromPalatine

07:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you're still talking to these people Bryan. TO his detractors: No good deed goes unpunished. Bryan has corrected hundreds of typos for Wikipedia in the past three years. He never opened an account because he didn't need to, and neither did I, for the same reason. I make small contributions on a few topics that I happen to know something about, but not as many as Bryan. ArlingtonTX 00:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been seven days and no CheckUser has been requested. According to Wikipedia policy, if no CheckUser request has been made at the end of the tenth day, this case is considered "not proven" and I'm allowed to take the notice off of my Talk page. Admin William M. Connolley has said that I can remove the 3rr block notice after a month. So if you want to continue tagging me with a scarlet letter, you need to do something, Ben. Kindest Regards as always, and Happy Holidays -- BryanFromPalatine 00:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's been nine days, and still no CheckUser request -- and no additional evidence from those two young prosecutors from Democratic Underground. Have they abandoned this case? Tune in tomorrow ... BryanFromPalatine 03:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happens on the last day of a trial when the prosecutors don't show up? The case gets dismissed with prejudice. Even if they had been here, any fair minded jury would have said, "Not guilty." I've been posting here without registering an account for over two years on a variety of topics. A check of my IP address will confirm this. - 12ptHelvetica 01:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a full ten days. Prosecution has clearly been abandoned. The case was not proven. I'm removing the sock puppet notice from my Talk page; 12pt, I suggest that you do so as well. -- BryanFromPalatine 03:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NEW INFORMATION

Please see Wikipedia:ANI#more_sockpuppetry --BenBurch 03:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This diff would seem to prove the case; [2]

It proves nothing, aside from the fact that on one occasion, I posted from the same location as DP1976. - BryanFromPalatine 12:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See checkuser request here; Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/DP1976 --BenBurch 07:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Watch carefully as an administrator tells you that there's a usage pattern suggesting that these are several different people who know each other. -- BryanFromPalatine 12:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More new data - quoting from the FR talk page; "12pthelvetica who he says is 208.250.137.2. On Dec 9 at 22:05 IP ad 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" HERE" --BenBurch 16:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, in his rush to judgment, BenBurch carefully ignores the possibility that two real, live people who don't agree with each other about everything - or even most things - might post innocently from the same IP address, and agree that there has been "much contention" on that subject. Tempest in a teapot, anyone? - DP1976 21:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, in his rush to judgment, BenBurch carefully ignores the possibility that two real, live people who don't agree with each other about everything - or even most things - might post innocently from the same IP address, and agree that there has been "much contention" on that subject. Tempest in a teapot, anyone? - DP1976 21:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The three people who are being accused of being SP or MP include a conservative Republican with an FR account, a moderate Republican who has never had an FR account, and a left-wing liberal Democrat. We know each other and we are from the same area. We have been participating anonymously on WP for a long time. DP1976 is right. The pre-registration editing histories of our IP addresses will tell the tale. We do not have a common agenda, except to make Wikipedia as great as it can be. The three of us have something else in common, our responses are similar to each other when we run into troublemakers and problem children who want to write a hit piece, rather than a fair and balanced NPOV article. BenBurch and FAAFA are problem children and DP1976 is right on that as well. Their archives on their Talk Pages tell the tale. They haven't been here even half as long as I have (including my time posting anonymously) and look at how much trouble they've been into. We have nothing to hide because we have done nothing wrong. This tireless harassment by BenBurch and FAAFA has got to stop. All of this started when BenBurch said to Bryan, "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on." There have been a lot of other little jabs and slashes from those two. When the admin looks at this mess I want the admin to know that I want some action taken against BenBurch and FAAFA for this harassment. Any admin can ask me any question they want. - 12ptHelvetica 00:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Proof

Again quoting from the FR talk page; "ON 12/21, DP1976 edited the post of 12ptHelvetica adding content HERE" --BenBurch 04:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DP1976. MER-C 13:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---