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. [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

To answer Daniel's question, Bryan has admitted that on a particular day, all edits from the 209 IP address were his. [2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(UI) Point of interest : Please see discussion of IP 209.221.240.193 towards the end of the following page starting with "Well Johnny" BryanFromPalatine Sock Case Maybe an Admin can make a phone call, as I suggested, to see if that IP is in a "law library". - Fairness And Accuracy For All 15:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repost (with updated material)

I'm a member in good standing at Wikipedia. I have created this sock puppet account solely for the purpose of addressing these ludicrous accusations, and insulating myself from the stalking and retaliation by F.A.A.F.A. and BenBurch that would surely follow. I have been watching these two, with varying amounts of amusement, amazement and disgust, for several months.

ClemsonTiger is not a single purpose account. He has over 160 edits, and only a handful were on the Free Republic talk page. he has never edited the Free Republic article at all. 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.

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 their 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.

ClemsonTiger’s story is very consistent and credible, no matter how much these two 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.

ClemsonTiger has been a good citizen of Wikipedia. In stark contrast, BenBurch and F.A.A.F.A. have a long and detailed 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, block logs and Talk pages (with archives, including the archives BenBurch has concealed), and determine who they'd rather have hanging around. The defense rests.

JohnnyCochran 23:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a finding that DP1976 is a sockpuppet of mine. This is an erroneous finding. It is a shared IP address belonging to not just DP1976 and I, but several thousand other employees of a corporation scattered at five sites throughout the Great Lakes region. [3]

1. Farmington Hills, Michigan;
2. South Bend, Indiana (where the server is located);
3. Hoffman Estates, Illinois;
4. Mt. Prospect, Illinois; and
5. Broadview, Illinois.

How do I get this ruling reconsidered or appealed? -- BryanFromPalatine 12:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: On 27 December BryanFromPalatine explained that the reason that he and DP1976 (and 12ptHelvetica?) shared the same IP was " These are three different people who know each other well enough to occasionally allow each other to use their computers." HERE

Please block these two confirmed sock accounts, and their related IP's as WP demands. - F.A.A.F.A. 13:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• They also previously claimed not to know each other, and that the other editors could be any one of the 70,000 people living in Palatine, IL. This "safety in numbers" defense is wearing mighty thin here. --BenBurch 16:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I just don't see it. Through cookies and other methods it is possible to distinguish between machines posting from the same IP address and conversely, identify the same machine posting from different addresses. While it is certainly true that shared IP's, especially amongst large corporations is common and can lead to confusion, expert analysis can look past IP address to determine identity. I suspect Wiki has some of that capability and has made the correct determination. Dman727 19:13, 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]

That fits as these socks did not appear until after Bryan got a 24 Hr 3RR block that did not sit well with him. --BenBurch 18:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They also previously claimed not to know each other That's a lie. Through cookies and other methods it is possible to distinguish between machines posting from the same IP address ... These machines are programmed to block cookies. ... expert analysis can look past IP address to determine identity. I suspect Wiki has some of that capability and has made the correct determination. It's the wrong determination. Bryan and I are separate individuals. But since Ben and FAAFA are trying so hard to make me feel unwelcome, I'll leave. - DP1976 20:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More: On 12/21 DP1976 (confirmed sock of BryanFromPalatine) edited the comments of 12ptHelvetica on a talk page, adding content HERE. Such actions strongly suggests that 12ptHelvetica is yet another sock of BryanFromPalatine. I look forward to the results of this investigation. SOCKDP1976's claims that three individuals, all working at the same location of a major corporation were having Wiki Editing Sessions in SOCKDP1976's office, taking turns editing Wiki on company time are amusing in their sheer outlandishness, but not very believable - F.A.A.F.A. 21:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing on company doesnt really sway me any. Heck I edit almost exclusively on company time and I work for a very major corporation. Nonethless, the remainder of your argument is pretty persuasive to me. Dman727 22:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you probably don't have 'two coworkers' join you at your computer in your office or workspace, editing the same article on Wiki in turns, all while logging in and out from the 'same computer' - yours. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Editing on company time - sure. Sharing one computer with 2 others for wiki editing..nah Dman727 05:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can it be explained why 209.221.240.193 removed this notice? Badagnani (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A response to these questions would be greatly appreciated. Badagnani (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]