DeanHinnen
Not a sockpuppet
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)
- 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)
- I'd like to see it become "liftable" also. Who knows, I might even learn to like it here. ;-) Dino 18:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Free Republic cite
Thank you for investigating that source, it certainly cleared up much of the controversy regarding that section. Again thank you, and welcome to Wikipedia. Let me know if you would like any help, Prodego talk 21:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Your claims and contact with TJ Walker and Carolyn of WMF
Hi Dino,
You claimed on Jan. 15, 2007, that you contacted author TJ Walker (regarding an article used to support claims of death threats in the Free Republic article) and that this author told you that he never wrote the article in question. "I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." here It's been proven that TJ Walker actually did write the article - and it's even archived from his website on the www here). Here is a list of the dozens of articles, including the one in question titled '7-6-99 Is the FreeRepublic.Com Really DeathThreat.Com?' , which you claim Walker told you that he 'didn't write'. TJ Walker - All Columns 1999-2000 Based on your false claims, a Wiki Foundation employee (who is not an active editor) User:Carolyn-WMF edited the contested FR article and removed critical material here.
Could you explain the inconsistancy between your claim of TJ saying he didn't write the article, and the truth, and chronicle any interactions you had with TJ Walker - and with Carolyn WMF that resulted in her editing the article on your behalf on Jan 15? Thanks. Fairness & Accuracy For All
- He doesn't have to explain anything to you. Nor is he responsible for explaining why TJ Walker would say he didn't write an article or whether TL walker actually wrote it or not. He also not responsible for the content of TJ Walker articles or the content of Free Republic. Your implied accusation here and the accusation of lying on your talk page is a Personal Attack and does not AGF. PLease remove it. --Tbeatty 03:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Beatty, If you actually believe that TJ Walker, a noted published author, liberal pundit, and "presentation coach and media trainer to prime ministers, premiers, Nobel Peace Prize winners, and CEOs." told Dean that he didn't write the article in question, I got some swamp land in the Northern Marianas Islands I wanna sell 'ya! LOL! - Fairness & Accuracy For Delay, Abramoff, Ney and Cunningham 07:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
some advice
Don't be baited by BenBurch and FAAFA. You are not required to answer to their concerns about content or answer any of their questions. Defend yourself from policy violations on AN/I but don't be drawn into discussions about content there. In fact, a good response is to tell them to take content issue to the articles talk page. They will bait you into a personal attack or some other violation (I see they trotted the "legal threat" card already). You've already been cleared of SockPuppet. Simply repeat it everytime they imply it. --Tbeatty 03:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. And thanks for sticking up for me. I've been back for only about 10 hours and it already feels like a three-day criminal trial. Dino 03:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've asked FAAFA to refactor his personal attack (accusation of lying) on his talk page. He deleted the comment. You may want to comment on AN/I after I file it. You may also want to ask him to refactor it on his talk page as well. --Tbeatty 04:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Dean, I encourage you to find a plausible explanation regarding your claims that TJ Walker told you he never wrote the article titled 'Is FreeRepublic.Com Really DeathThreat.Com?' and found on his website, because you will have to answer to those claims, if you persue this Dean. Maybe, like Scooter Libby, you mis-remembered what was told to you? ;-) I encourage you to think if you really want to see this noted author dragged into this mess of your making to verify or dispute your claims. - Fairness & Accuracy For All
- Plenty of admins have seen this recent behavior by BenBurch and FAAFA, and none of them are doing anything about it. Unblock-en-l worked slowly and it was frustrating; but in the end, it worked. What now? What can I do about this? WP:ANI seems pointless since nothing has been done. The ruling of Unblock-en-l is being ignored, as though I was unblocked on a whim with no evidence. What can I do? Dino 12:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- You can file an RfC or an ArbCom. Tbeatty 15:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Some unsolicited advice. Let your actions speak louder than your words. Perhaps let the stuff at AN/I go on by without responding to every comment, and focus more on gathering consensus for change at the Free Republic page. Although I do have a tendency to stick up for myself, sometimes it's best to let things go for a while. If your positive contributions make a difference, it won't matter who thinks what of you. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 19:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to remove the harassing Sockpuppet notices from your user page
10 days. And exonerated by two admins. No need to put up with harassment. Tbeatty 17:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually exonerated by three admins: Yamla, Luna Santin, and Lar. The latter two are real veterans and appear to be influential. Nevertheless, I hesitate to remove warnings such as that one from my own User page. But since it was removed yesterday by an admin, I'll go ahead and do it. Thanks Dino 17:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like you've already done it, thanks. No need to worry about the 3RR rule, you're removing vandalism. If you get into trouble, I'll stick up for you. Dino 17:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Nice to see you are un-blocked
Just a note though, I see since you have been unblocked (2 days) you have already made over 40 edits to the free Republic talk page and many others trying to push the sockpuppet, meat puppet, anti Ben Burch and FAAFA case. For someone who has by the grace of a god and the skin of his teeth been allowed to once again edit wiki, I would suggest you just drop the whole matter and for a while keep a wide birth of the free republic page. You have made some noise and people are watching.
You need to rebuild your user trust and estabish that user TBeatty was not wrong in supporting you. Editors and admins have put their faith in you and you need to return that in kind.
Thanks also for your support and kind words during my ordeal.
Mobile 01Talk 09:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- My entire purpose here is to protect Wikipedia from being sued for libel, and Wikipedia administrators understand that. Free Republic has already successfully sued the City of Fresno for libel, winning a $60,000 out-of-court settlement and also costing the City of Fresno maybe $100,000 in attorney fees (maybe a lot more; lawyers in Southern California are expensive). So they're inclined to litigate.
- The Free Republic article is being edited and "owned" by some very reckless partisans from a rival left-wing site named Democratic Underground. They don't care whether Wikipedia gets sued. What's important to them is making sure that the most derogatory material about Free Republic that exists anywhere on the Internet either becomes part of the article, or is linked to the article. They are defending it with a fanaticism that reminds me of Iwo Jima.
- If Wikipedia gets sued, there will be a dozen administrators stripping every defamatory statement and reference out of the article and blocking the editors responsible, and I'll be saying, "I told you so." But by then it will be too late. If I can succeed in getting this material removed, I'll take your advice and start editing other articles. Thanks for looking out for me. But I'm looking out for Wikipedia. Cheers. Dino 14:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- To a number of outsiders it looks like your whole purpose is to keep the Free Republic article from including anything negative. Which would, of course, stop Wikipedia being sued by them, as subjects of a hagiography rarely do sue, but your self-evident and admitted conflict of interest means you should be a good deal less aggressive when fighting your corner. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- There are other self-evident conflicts of interest among the editors of that article but nobody seems to be inclined to do anything about it. Dino 00:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Would you care to elucidate? I have just read WP:COI and I don't think that I have any conflict of interest in my editing of FR. Nor do I see anybody there other than yourself who appears to. --BenBurch 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are the founder of a website dedicated to proving that the Bush Administration is fascist. Since the lead of the Free Republic article persistently describes the site as "a rubber stamp for Bush Administration policy," there is really only one conclusion. You were also a long-term user of Free Republic's rival left-wing site, Democratic Underground until you were banned. Isn't that correct? Relevant passage of WP:COI: "If you have a conflict of interest, you should: avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors." Dino 00:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- So, neither a Republican nor a Democrat ought ever to edit Free Republic? (Honestly, that might be a good idea.) --BenBurch 00:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- You may have noticed that I'm not editing it. Dino 00:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- You have been BARRED from editing it, isn't that why? --BenBurch 01:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ben and I have both been working in good faith to improve the article - I am the one who just researched, compiled, wrote and added the info about Tony Snow and the Dixie Chicks, and FR v Code Pink at Walter Reed, which all reflect FR in a positive light. Please stop your mischaracterizations Dino. Ben, I'm trying to find something on your site saying that its "dedicated to proving that the Bush Administration is fascist" but I can't find ANY such a statement. I thought it was dedicated to archiving progressive talk programs ! Can we safely call this yet ANOTHER of Dino's mischaracterizations ? - Fairness & Accuracy For All 01:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, we certainly can. Though I do see creeping fascism in what is happening in this country, White Rose is dedicated to combatting that with Truth, just as the original White Rose Martyrs used leaflets, I use radio programs. --BenBurch 01:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
"Fighting the Rise of the New Fascism" sounds like anti-islamic extremist rhetoric. Or did you mean something else? --Tbeatty 09:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
BryanFromPalatine
You may not act as a proxy for a banned user. Since you probably did not know this I have not blocked you for it. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- First: he's not banned, he's permablocked. The distinction is subtle but important. He can appeal his permablock and get unblocked. just like I did. Second: if someone doesn't post something for him within the prescribed venues for dispute resolution, how can he participate in dispute resolution? Dino 23:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Even a banned user may appeal. --BenBurch 23:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- He may indeed appeal. What he may not do, however, is take part in Wikipedia processes other than an appeal while he is banned (which he is, as a community ban, I believe - as an admin with some experience I do know the difference). Guy (Help!) 23:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I know you do! I was explaining to Dean. :-) --23:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for for removing your Legal Threat.
I appreciate it that you decided voluntarily to obey our rules. --BenBurch 01:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please also remove it from this talk page. --BenBurch 01:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)