Jump to content

User talk:BryanFromPalatine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BryanFromPalatine (talk | contribs) at 14:15, 17 January 2007 (→Same ole Tricks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, BryanFromPalatine, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  JBKramer 18:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you.--BenBurch 20:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that fellow editors are here to improve Wikipedia, until evidence disproves that assumption. Your own pair of archives from your Talk pages, and your own conduct, disprove that assumption with regard to you. -- BryanFromPalatine 20:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Free Republic.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 04:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

==Your recent edit to Free Republic ==

Your change was determined to be unhelpful and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Indeed, you made a mess of the article by not reading it before you edited it, and by blanking sections that you had been warned by several other editors not to blank. Please don't do this. You do not own the Free Republic article by virtue of being a member of that august body, nor are you the first person who objected to the material that you are trying to censor. This article had been a bone of contention here before you ever heard of Wikipedia, and will be probably long after you have given up on it, and is the way it is because of consensus. And I think you can see that all you are doing is motivating the addition of more material of the sort you object to. Now, please try to calmly discuss changes and convince the rest of us why you think they are a good idea. You will find us not unreasonable if you are not trying to be a confrontation bully who refuses to accept the good faith efforts of others, which is all we have seen of you to date. --BenBurch 05:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments on Talk:Free Republic

Several users have suggested that I leave this for you. READ the policies linked to and UNDERSTAND the consequences. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --BenBurch 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BryanFromPalatine wrote: "Finding a RS that will include all of the mud Ben and FAAFA seek to sling would be really nice as a first step."
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!
Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. - F.A.A.F.A. 02:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the acrimony came after BenBurch posted a particularly nasty personal attack for Bryan to see. Then BenBurch deleted it. That happened about a week ago and all this resentment you've seen in the past few days is residual from that. The history of the talk page for BenBurch will tell you all you need to know about that. Bryan is not a problem child. BenBurch is a problem child. He has provoked Bryan, but Bryan has never been nearly that nasty in response. 12ptHelvetica 18:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Howdy

Saw your plea for help on Crockspot's talk page. If you need help, let me know. So long as you remain civil in your discussions with other editors, I will do everything I can to assist you. Please enable your e-mail so that we might speak more freely. Morton devonshire 03:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right. E-mail enabled. Thanks. It's obvious that the sock puppet allegation is being used solely as a vehicle for interrogation and harassment. It's been ten days now, and no CheckUser request has been made. -- BryanFromPalatine 03:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BryanFromPalatine for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. BenBurch 04:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry Findings

 Confirmed DP1976 and BryanFromPalatine. It is  Possible that 12ptHelvetica is the same. Dmcdevit·t 09:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Sockpuppetry Findings[reply]

Reposted by F.A.A.F.A. 09:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked for a week for sockpuppeting. The length of this block may be subject to change based on the opinions of other administrators. Ral315 (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to work with you.

Now that your block is over, I'm willing to give you a second chance and work with you on articles we both decide to work on, and I know that you will not attempt to sockpuppet again, and will abandon any socks that we didn't detect yet. --BenBurch 15:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Republic

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Free Republic. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Prodego talk 21:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Free Republic. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --BenBurch 23:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you are now on the fifth revert for today I filed notice of your actions at WP:AN/3RR --BenBurch 23:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for two weeks for general disruption. Prodego talk 01:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archives that BenBurch is trying to conceal

Archive 1 Beginning - June 2006 - - Archive 2 June 2006 - December 3rd 2006

Threats to BB

38.119.66.207 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) wrote : "You jerks will never block me And if you think this ends here on Wikipedia, you are mistaken. I know who you are and I know where you are " Another new BFP sock? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 13:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That IP address is located in Marina Del Rey, California. You know, on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, within a couple of miles of the Santa Monica Pier. What do you think? -- BryanFromPalatine 18:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: IP address points to myspace-type provider called www.blnk.com. 'Bryan' has evidently studied up on proxies, which makes his actions all the more troubling. Evading a permaban to threaten another user is serious business. If 'Bryan' posts threats again, I suggest that the Wiki legal team contact law enforcement and his well-known corporate employer. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 19:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here I am, posting again. Call Sheriff Roscoe. - BryanFromPalatine 20:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, I notice you never denied the charges. You are allowed to post in this page for one reason only; To appeal your block. This is the only way a permablock differs from a ban here on wikipedia. Either do so, or stop sockpuppeting with stolen IP addresses. --BenBurch 07:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I even try to deny it? You'll say that you don't believe it, because you (or FAAFA) are the one who used that proxy to deliver that threat to yourself. Same thing with Kynouria. That was your work or FAAFA's. -- BryanFromPalatine 14:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you then stipulate that all the others were actually YOU? Nice. So was Kynouria. I'd like to think you are above threats of bodily harm, though. In any case those are unlikely to be carried out since you accidentally outed your identity to us. --BenBurch 13:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argument in favor of unblocking

I am a member of the Free Republic legal team, [1] permablocked for sockpuppetry. Please read every word of Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises. In particular, read this statement by Jimbo Wales: "...reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do." Also please read this regarding the sockpuppetry issue: [2] I was a new editor, removing poorly sourced negative material from the Free Republic article which I believe to be libelous.

My efforts to do so were constantly and relentlessly met with harassment, hectoring and ridicule by two left-wing Wiki editors, BenBurch and F.A.A.F.A. (formerly known as NBGPWS, which stands for "Neocons Be Gone, Protest Warrior Sucks"). They are engaged in a comprehensive campaign to undermine WP:NPOV on politically sensitive articles, particularly online advocacy groups such as FR, Democratic Underground and Protest Warrior. One is the founder of a website dedicated to showing that George W. Bush is a fascist. [3] Both were active members of DU, which would normally be their natural habitat, for several years until they were banned for life – due to their trolling activities against members who they deemed to be insufficiently left-wing. Their presence on such politically sensitive topics, and inability to view them objectively, is a daily violation of WP:COI. In pursuit of this POV-pushing agenda, they engage in edit warring and routinely violate WP:CIV, WP:BITE, WP:NPA, and particularly WP:RS. [4]

At one point, shortly after I created an account, BenBurch said to me, "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on." When he was sure I'd seen it, he deleted it. [5]

Detailing all of the evidence against them, and in my defense, would fill this page. I direct the reader's attention to the contrib histories of BenBurch and F.A.A.F.A. (including his previous "life" as NBGPWS); and, especially, to the archives of their Talk pages, including the ones that BenBurch has concealed. [6] [7]

Pay special attention to the coaching they've received on "how to use Wikipolicy as a sword" to further their agenda, and steamroller anybody who dares to oppose thir agenda and protect NPOV. [8] As a result, administrators' attempts to rehabilitate them have only encouraged them to become more clever, cunning and subtle. They have used sockpuppet accusations against me as vehicles for even more vicious personal attacks and ridicule. [9] Once their target has been blocked, they engage in more ridicule and taunting, such as the placement of this image [10] on my Talk page, [11] then removing it after an admin called them on it. [12]

I'm not stupid, and I'm a reasonable even-tempered person. Consider how much I had to be provoked and baited. Then unblock me so that I can take these two in front of the Arbitration Committee.

  • What, the meatpuppet complaint your sock puppet filed while you were evading your block wasn't enough? BTW, one of the emails you sent out to somebody whose edits I reverted on the Henry Ford article came to ME by mistake, and was posted to WP:ANI in case anybody wants to read it. --BenBurch 14:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

BryanFromPalatine (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See above

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=See above |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=See above |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=See above |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Same ole Tricks

Bryan, on his FR user page claims:

"I'm a member of the Free Republic legal team. In the summer of 2001, I flew out to California to help Attorney Brian Buckley ("Clarity") appeal a judgment of $1 million against Free Republic in the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post copyright lawsuit."

I'd be impressed if it were true, but the appelate brief was filed on April 16, 2001. More 'tall tales'. "Silly Wabbit .... Tricks are for kids! " The truth will set you free - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 14:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, you walking misnomer.
One can work (and even collaborate on an appellate brief) while online.
Also notice the filing date of the reply brief, which essentially blew the lawyers from the Los Angeles Times right out of the water. For that one, I had to fly out to LA. -- BryanFromPalatine 14:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BryanFromPalatine&oldid=101329210"