User talk: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 01^Talk 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)

He means George W. Bush and the Republican leadership. At the same time, he persists in making sure that Free Republic is described as "a rubber stamp for Bush Administration policy" in the lead of the article. The COI is obvious.

You have been BARRED from editing it, isn't that why?

That restriction was self-imposed; read the comment by Lar. You, on the other hand, should be barred from editing it since you aren't receptive to the idea of self-imposed restrictions. Dino 11:13, 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)

WP:COI

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) [Reposted from my Talk page Dino 00:27, 29 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. BenBurch is the founder of a website dedicated to proving that the Bush Administration is fascist. He was a long-term user of Free Republic's rival left-wing site, Democratic Underground until he was banned for misconduct. FAAFA is still a DU member. Have you said anything to them along these WP:COI lines? Dino 00:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Their behaviour is not relevant to yours. If you feel there is a problem with their editing, then dispute resolution is the place to go. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There's an RfC under way, Guy. I encourage you to comment, since you are clearly concerned about WP:COI violations and enforcing Wikipedia policy. Dino 11:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That RfC is going to be deleted, if I have anything to do with it, because of your blatant attempts to vote-stack by leaving messages on the Talk pages of many editors who have past disputes with them. I already removed one "endorsement" as being the proxy of a banned user, and the other "endorsement" is from at best a disruptive single-purpose account and at worst a sockpuppet. You are now elevating your conflict of interest towards disruptive POV pushing. Now would be a great time to step back. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Blatant attempts to vote-stack": BenBurch has also been leaving messages on the Talk pages of other editors, inviting them to join the fray. Please answer this directly: why are you so dedicated to policing me, while ignoring BenBurch? Can you explain that? Please don't respond with another "irrelevant," since my actions are almost always in direct response to his. Thank you. Dino 13:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Think twice before using the "but he started it!" defence when interacting with an administrator who has children. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Dean. Please throttle back on the editing that appears contentious. What I am seeing now is a pattern that will lead to you being blocked, not for being a sock, but for being disruptive. On the mailing list you pledged to do constructive editing, to work for consensus, and in general to be a positive force. This pattern... isn't those things. Let others defend you, and focus on getting consensus for the changes to Free Republic. If this pattern continues I suspect the admins that spoke up in favour of unblocking you will be loudest among the voices calling for you to be blocked. Please don't waste our time, please don't make it turn out that we took a bad bet on you. You were civil and polite on the mailing list. Be that here. Go the extra step, turn the other cheek, and do what you said you were going to do and nothing more. Right now I'm disappointed. (and oh by the way I have children too so "He started it" won't work with me either) ++Lar: t/c 16:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

PS the above is my second attempt to offer some counsel of how to behave, see above. My third attempt will be accompanied by a short block to get things calmed for a bit. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Taking a short Wikibreak voluntarily
to get things calmed for a bit
(and to confer with some friends) ................. Dino 20:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please remove my name from the RfC

Hi Dean, maybe you should remove my name from the RfC. I am really not involved with these editors:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BenBurch#User:Travb_response

And I have no idea who you are.

Once you remove me from the RfC, I will simply delete the above section, and we will go our seperate ways. Travb (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting me out of this, I will remove my comments right now.

Looks like Tbeatty really frustrated BenBerch...Travb (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dino

RE: User_talk:BenBurch#You_a_lawyer.3F

Hey Dino, you are probably watching BenBerch's page, so I might as well tell you here first. I wrote a short blurb there. I am not going to join the stupid Freeper argument, (I hate the really high traffic, controversial wikisites). We (me and you) can go our seperate ways. I wouldn't want your job for a million dollars.

I noticed that you made a lot of mistakes in the RfC, but we all learn from our mistakes. There is a sharp and vicious learning curve on wikipedia, especially if you want to edit the really controversial sites like the Freeper site.

I would suggest removing the strange message on your user page.

You are probably the only other editor I know who has been unbanned from an indefinite ban (me too). Maybe we should start a club. Travb (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Next step

I suggest that your next step in respect of your dispute with the others is in the general direction of Away. I strongly suggest that you take that Wikibreak you are talking about and leave BenBurch and FAAFA, and preferably the article, alone for at least two weeks. Any pressing issues of factual accuracy can be reported to one of the admins you are in contact with. I think it is fair to say that by now most of us have had more than enough of this crap. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dean, if you do what JzG says, and the others don't, it makes you look like the guy who comprimised. I had this same voluntary ban before, with User:Zer0faults and myself. I was the only one who complied. Better a voluntary ban then a forced one. Travb (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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: 16:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for trolling and baiting BenBurch. When I said leave him alone for at least a couple of weeks, that's pretty much what I meant. I certainly did not mean invite your banned "brother" along for a piece of the action. You have been told before that you may not act as a proxy for a banned user. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If only the same 24-hour blocking approach had been used each and every time my brother was trolled and baited. FAAFA and BenBurch would have been gone more than they were here in the past two months. My post on BB's Talk page looked like a very civil invitation to a very civil debate, rather than trolling and baiting, and that's how I meant it. I was not acting as a proxy for a banned user; I was stating what I thought Bryan's reaction would be. Also, you phrased it as "strongly suggest," not as a "warning." Therefore I understood it as a suggestion, not a warning. Read your own post. Dino 22:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Your reaction to a block for trolling is to troll the blocking admin? Wow that's smart. Not. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It does not appear that BenBurch has a problem with further contact with my brother:

"Have a nice life, Bryan. And if you ever want to meet in person for lunch and bury our online differences, I'm open to it."

"Good Bye Bryan. My offer of lunch still stands."

But go ahead and act as though a "suggestion" should be understood by everyone to mean a final warning, and pretend that you're being fair and even-handed here. I repeat: If only the same 24-hour blocking approach had been used each and every time my brother was trolled and baited. FAAFA and BenBurch would have been gone more than they were here in the past two months. Dino 01:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I will go ahead and act as if you ignored a very strong suggestion to leave BenBurch alone. Don't pretend I did not make myself clear. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you made yourself very clear, sir. Crystal clear, sir. It was a suggestion, not a warning. Meanwhile, others have the archives of their Talk pages wallpapered with genuine warnings, and delete more genuine warnings from their Talk pages almost on a daily basis, but you never seem to notice the misconduct that their paper tiger warnings are all about. Dino 16:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No legal threats

Wikipedia policy prohibits legal threats or statements which could be interpreted as legal threats. Your statement on the page User:DeanHinnen is far too close to a legal threat for comfort and I can see no purpose for such a statement other than to intimidate other editors. Whatever your intent in placing this statement there, I have removed it and I ask that you not restore it. Thank you. Gamaliel 02:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

... is far too close to a legal threat for comfort ...

Close but no cigar. I don't make the decisions about who Free Republic sues and, in fact, I've been trying to talk that person out of it. I notice that you're upset about the enforcement of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP that I've done on the Peter Roskam article, but since you can't do anything about that, you decided to come over here and try to find fault with me.

... and I can see no purpose for such a statement other than to intimidate other editors.

You're a late arrival to this party, so I'll get you caught up. Certain left-wing editors are relentlessly trying to delegitimize anyone who has the nerve to disagree with them. Lately they've been pretty successful with completely bogus sockpuppet accusations. I was Permablocked on my first day here. Others -- even Carolyn Doran, an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation -- have had the same experience. The only difference between me and the other alleged sockpuppets is that I had enough patience to go to Unblock-en-l and proved that I am a real person, not a sockpuppet.

Look at the top of this page. There is the consensus (unanimous) opinion of the three admins who reviewed my case. I am making a good faith effort to remove libelous statements from articles about living persons and organizations that aren't sufficiently left-wing to get the Wikileftie seal of approval.

I suspect that because Tammy Duckworth has been elevated to the status of a martyr by the anti-war left, the Peter Roskam article has been targeted for POV pushing. Due to this effort, any negative information about him that can be gathered is being put into the article, in violation of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and WP:BLP. As an administrator, I would ordinarily expect you to share my concern. Perhaps your political beliefs, or even a membership at Democratic Underground, are staying your hand regarding those violations of Wikipedia policies, and guiding your hand against me for enforcing those policies.

My User page will remain blank, to reflect the relentless efforts to silence me and defeat my good-faith efforts to protect Wikipedia from libel lawsuits by conservatives. Dino 17:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dean, if you could possibly be less of the martyr and more of the good editor, it would be good. I know other people are not blameless here, but you really have to stop behaving in an incollegial manner. Even if you feel you're provoked. I am seeing a lot of turmoil and ill will here. And it seems that you're the cause of a fair bit of it, or at least partly the cause. Just stop. Or, despite good intentions, you won't be contributing here any more for a while. You've been warned a number of times already, and a large number of admins have been quite patient, but at some point we are going to cut our losses here. Please don't get to that point. You're almost there with me already and I think I'm pretty patient. ++Lar: t/c 23:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well Larry, nobody's going to ever bitch and whine about imaginary legal threats on my User page any more. It will remain blank. Perhaps if the rules about WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:RS, WP:V and particularly WP:NPOV and WP:BLP would be enforced by administrators against the Wikilefties, rather than wallpapering their Talk pages with more absolutely useless warnings to be ignored, I might not become vulnerable to accusations that I've behaved in an incollegial manner. You saw me during the Unblock-en-l procedure and I believe it was you who described me as a "paragon of civility." Furthermore, you have acknowledged that "others are not blameless here." That was the understatement of the year. There's no reason why I can't be a paragon of civility at all times. But when I feel that I'm alone in this, that I have no power at all and that some of those with power are playing favorites against me, it becomes very frustrating. There aren't many running backs who can run with the football, down after down and week after week, without stepping on someone's toes now and then. I hope you understand, my friend.

Perhaps you've heard of the Siegenthaler case. Wikipedia gets 2 million hits a day, so any libelous statement here cannot be ignored by the victim. With a horde of Wikilefties trotting from article to article, throwing in every negative thing they can find anywhere on the Internet about every conservative person and organization mentioned here, you have the perfect recipe for more and more Siegenthaler cases.

And you know I'm only trying to help prevent that. Now if you'll excuse me, I'd like to watch a football game. Dino 23:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm very aware of Siegenthaler, it preys on the minds of a lot of us. You were indeed a "paragon of civility" on the mailing list when you wanted to be unblocked. What happened? I'm not seeing that civility now... that's what I'm driving at. That's what needs to change. ++Lar: t/c 03:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Larry, with all due respect, you're acting like a politician who says, "We have a lot of crime in our minority neighborhoods, so let's build more prisons." But there are many underlying causes of crime in those neighborhoods that are not being adequately addressed such as poverty, racism and the disintegration of the family. I will try harder to remain civil. But I encourage administrators to adequately address the underlying causes of any incivility they may perceive. Thank you. Dino 10:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you've run into bogus accusations here on Wikipedia. That kind of thing is always an unpleasant experience, but such an experience should have you aware of the consequences of unfounded accusations and thus more hesitant to make them. Instead, without the slightest hint of evidence, you have leveled some serious allegations at me, inventing the idea that I'm "upset" about some edits you made - edits I haven't even read, mind you - at Peter Roskam. Why would I not simply revert you if I was so "upset"? I'm not even going to justify your imagined accusations with a response or rebuttal. I'm just going to point out Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I assume you want people to treat you like you are not a sockpuppet of whoever you've been accused of being a sock of and that you want people to believe that you have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and aren't going around threatening to sue people. You should extend the same courtesy to others if you are interested in contributing to a harmonious atmosphere which encourages collaborative editing. Even if you are not, keep in mind such behavior will not be tolerated here. You will refrain from leveling baseless accusations of any kind against users in the future. Comment on the content of contributions, not what you imagine the motives of others to be. Gamaliel 06:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Beware of this administrator, look at his talk page and see the friend he protects, as well as his editing history and his statment of his polictical beliefs on his user page and you will see what I mean. Any opinion you may have in any discussion, contrary to this admin's POV and you will be labled, by him, as "uncivil", "disruptive", or worst, as sock of JoeHell himself and he will use any reason to shut down you. Also, be warned this admin has very powerful freinds (slim vigin) and even jimbo himself, and is considered "untouchable". (a friend with history with this administrator) 207.195.246.144 07:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to butt in here. I've had plenty of quasi-heated disagreements with Gamaliel, but I have to say that he tries to be fair. Yes, he does tend, if he feels he is being attacked, to focus on the attack, and not listen to whatever rational points you are trying to make. The best way to deal with that is to not attack him, and be civil. Then he has no choice but to address your arguements. He's a liberal, and he looks out for those interests. But there isn't anything wrong with that. I do the same thing on the conservative side. I have a very powerful friend in Jimbo as well. Around here, that and a dollar will get you a bad cup of coffee. Gamaliel doesn't make tendicious edits, doesn't make smart-ass remarks, and doesn't rub things in people's faces, unlike some editors. If he gets it in his mind that an editor needs to be "shut down", there's probably a very good reason he feels that way. There is very little that he and I would agree on, but I think he's just trying to do his duty in the best way he can, given the same human biases that we all have. - Crockspot 22:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

edits I haven't even read, mind you ...

Then what brings you here, if I may ask? Dino 10:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I came here to look at your user page and see if you were a sockpuppet of a banned user named Joe Hazelton, who I permablocked because he couldn't go for ten minutes without insulting someone contributing to the Roskam article. I have removed his messages here as per Wikipedia policy regarding banned users. You are, of course, free to communicate with him off site, but I suggest taking his rantings with a grain of salt or two. Obviously, I immediately concluded that you were not his sockpuppet, so I saw no need to examine your edits to Peter Roskam. You are, of course, free to contribute to editing that article, but I notice some of your comments on Talk:Peter Roskam were very combative and accusatory. Make your case for your preferred version of the article on that page, but I have to insist that you refrain from accusing others of bias or POV editing. Such "debate" tactics are inappropriate and uncivil. Gamaliel 19:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Gamaliel, when someone claims I'm a member of the "black helicopter/NWO crowd" and that Timothy McVeigh and David Koresh are "martyrs" to me, it's reasonable to infer that the person is not participating in good faith. Dino 20:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But please don't escalate the situation. I've posted a note on that talk page as a blanket request for civility from all editors. Gamaliel 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That works for me, until they start ignoring it. I've had plenty of experiences with these people in the past. Dino 21:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection

If I protect a page against anything but clear vandalism (i.e. content disputes), I will need to fully protect the page, per policy. The Free Republic edits were vandalism, but the Peter Roskam edits were not. There doesn't really seem to be enough activity to merit a protection either. However, since the IP seems static, a block would be a better action to take if one becomes necessary, since it would limit collateral damage by allowing other anon editors. Let me know, or leave a note in the admin's noticeboard if you feel that is necessary. Prodego ^talk 23:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Thank you for your message. I believe this conflict has escalated far enough, and as a result, I have filed an arbitration request. You may make a statement there. Prodego ^talk 23:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter Roskam

Please stop vandalizing Peter Roskam

I'd have thought a legal beagle such as yourself would be more careful with words. So buy yourself a dictionary and educate yourelf on the meaning of words you use BEFORE using them: it'll make you look smarter, if nothing else. --Calton | Talk 16:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if will help your case any, but there is a RfC open on Calton about a totally different subject. Not sure if it will help you in your current situation, but you can use it if you like. [Click here for the link]. I am not aware of your current situation with Calton (and hope things can be worked out), but please let me know if I can be of assistance in any way. Take care....SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 16:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn's responce

I may have misinterpreted the comment he posted there, since it was not in it's own section, I thought it was a question seeking help in the matter. I will ask Billy what his intentions were, and ask him to place it in it's own section if it is in fact a comment. Is this acceptable to you? Prodego ^talk 20:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Billy doesn't appear to be in the habit of creating section headers. Dino 20:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My participation in the Roskam article

I have made more comments on the talk page than I have made edits to the article. I am not an expert on the Congressman, in fact I live in Indiana. However, I think I know POV when I see it. It looks like most of the parties are calming down and trying to build some good and informative content. I am an admin here, and since I have already done some administrative actions related to this article and some of the participants, I am trying to stay away from getting involved in the content disputes. I know that some other editor's actions can make you upset, as it can with me, too. But keep trying to keep your wits about you and not fly off the handle. To paraphrase Henry Kissinger - Wikipedia politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small (Dr. Kissinger said "University politics ..." --rogerd 16:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Roger, thanks again for your support. Sometimes all it takes is one word at the right time and I can become very calm, highly motivated and effective. But certain editors have been displaying a consummate skill at needling and getting under one's skin. That's what the new ArbCom is about. Within a couple of hours of my first edit here, I was permablocked as an alleged sockpuppet. But those early edits, and my conduct in Unblock-en-l, earned me the title "paragon of civility." It is a measurement of their skill at needling that I've been brought to the point you've seen at Talk:Peter Roskam.

In my opinion, the stakes are a lot higher than you may realize. If The New York Times is the first draft of history, this is the second draft. Wikipedia gets 2 million hits a day and, with the mirror sites such as Answer.com, total daily hits on articles originating at Wikipedia are in the neighborhood of 2.6 million a day. This is one of the premier information sites on the Internet; and while the presence of POV pushers and other unprofessional people keep it from being a truly reliable source, it's a great place to start a research project. The first time any high school or college student in the English-speaking world hears the name "Peter Roskam," they'll be Googling; and the first two hits will be the official congressional site and Wikipedia. Then they may have the pleasure of reading an article that might as well have been a collaboration by MoveOn.org and the Duckworth campaign staff, with their POV carefully camouflaged by weasel words and argumentum ad hominem.

It's unfortunate that my brother can't participate. He's a walking encyclopedia, certainly a helluva lot smarter than me and a much better writer, but he has a very short temper and he has a tendency to say "To hell with the rules" when he's angry. Others have gleefully taken advantage of that character flaw. I did as well, when we were children; but I also quickly developed a "Nobody gets to pick on Bryan but me" attitude, which has also contributed to the current dynamic. Dino 16:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to add to the evidence page. It is where the arbcom gets its info from. You should create a section and put any and all evidence you have that would support the remedies you want the arbcom to give. Remember they get a lot of their info from that page, be sure to present you case. Prodego ^talk 02:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

categories

A technical tip: I noticed a small typo on your part in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop, and I fixed it. For future reference, if you want to refer to category in an article, without adding that article to the category, use the following syntax:

[[:Category:U.S. military transport aircraft 1920-1929]]

Note the colon (:) before the word "Category"...see Wikipedia:Categorization#Links to categories --rogerd 16:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that was the Admin JzG. He posted that on behalf of two opposing parties. But thanks for thinking of me. Dino 16:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that now [1]. It was not signed, and I was a little confused. I added the {{unsigned2}} template [2]. --rogerd 17:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

JzG's edit

No, it does not reveal any undisclosed personal info. You have revealed your name, and that Bryan is your brother. Prodego ^talk 03:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You posted it to unblock-en-l. E-mail is not private, I only removed it when I posted it, because I was not comfortable with it. It is a moot point now, you have said it yourself for some time now. I think that it would be best to contact another admin (as you did at the noticeboard), as that person would be able to judge the situation much better then I can. Prodego ^talk 03:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Chicagostyledog

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. — Moe 03:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That was a far milder warning than what I would have left. So here you go... this is in NO WAY a first level warning, you knew better.... [3] is unacceptable blanking of another user's page that acts in a way as to interfere with the smooth operation of Wikipedia. Don't do it again or you will be blocked. Perhaps I need to review your contribution history again more closely? ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Got your mail, I'll respond here. Without reproducing it, I do acknowledge that your brother may well be uncomfortably exposed but I deny that WP had much of anything to do with it. You've made no secret of your last name, and that you are brother to BryanFromPalantine. As said elsewhere, anyone can and will connect those dots. It's too late now to stop that. And the things you are asking be removed... are not relevant to such protection either. You could ask for oversight more formally, but I see nothing here that needs oversighting. Further... My warning stands, don't mess with sockpuppet notices or you may be blocked. In case you haven't figured it out, I'm not very sympathetic to your overall approach, if I ever was... What blew it for me was your repeated mischaracterisation of what transpired on unblock-en-i, despite repeated correction, as some sort of validation of anything. Your actions lately (including conspiracy theory allegations) undermine your position far more than they help it. ++Lar: t/c 16:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

24 Hour block

I've issued a 24 hour block for your blanking of comments at WP:AN/I.--Isotope23 16:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. I was just coming back here to warn you about that... [4] is unacceptable interference in the smooth operation of Wikipedia. ++Lar: t/c 16:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the block was issued because while you were trying to remove anything which could remotely identify [BFP], you were taking out extraneous comments at the same time. While I don't agree with you redacting any of the comments made by other people, taking out the rest of the comments and leaving only a part that is completely different than the intended content is completely unacceptable and disruptive.--Isotope23 16:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. It was a cool down block and it looks like you've cooled down. Per your concerns I removed the part that I figured was probably most troublesome to you immediately after the block.--Isotope23 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have always been "cool" (meaning "calm"). Unfortunately, at that point I didn't have a lot of time to invest in the editing process; I got a little sloppy, which led to problems understanding what I was trying to do. There are privacy considerations that follow BFP from other venues; and it's difficult for those unfamiliar with the situation to fully understand its gravity. The inability to reach you via e-mail complicated matters. Dino 16:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

At this point, another "self-imposed restriction" is appropriate. Dino 16:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My email is enabled so I'm not sure why you would have problems with contacting me via email. Look I understand that the individual in question has privacy concerns, but my earlier point still stands, and I'll leave it at that per WP:BEANS since you seem to have concerns over it.--Isotope23 17:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Odd... somehow it got disabled. Fixed now, sorry about that. What is really strange is that I was getting email up until a couple of days ago.--Isotope23 18:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

48 hour block

I've blocked you for 2 days due to your unacceptable talk page spamming. I'm willing to lift this block if you agree to cease this and all other disruptive activity. The ball is in your court. Nandesuka 14:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I was "paging" people who have already participated in a discussion about a proposed change in Wikipedia policy. I announced what I believed to be the consensus of opinion in that discussion, and asked them for further feedback if they choose to provide it. I cannot think of a more worthwhile purpose for what you describe as "spam." Nevertheless, I will stop it instantly.

Did any of the recipients of this "spam" complain about it? No, they did not. Who complained about it? Why, it was JzG. Imagine that. Are there any other secret rules that I don't know about and will be blocked instantly if I break them? Dino 15:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you've agreed to stop all disruptive activity, I will unblock you. Thanks in advance for avoiding such activities in the future. You will, indeed, be blocked in the future if you disrupt Wikipedia. Hopefully, this will incent you to avoid such behavior. Nandesuka 15:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For future purposes, see Wikipedia:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Multiposting for the relevant guidelines that are involved here. --rogerd 15:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Taking a short Wikibreak voluntarily
to get things calmed for a bit
(and to confer with some friends) ................. Dino 17:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hilarious! A voluntary Wikibreak enforced by block, and an implied threat! Riiiiiiight. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That was after the 48-hour block you instigated was lifted in 45 minutes, sir; and there is no implied threat. More of your trademark distortions, sir. I'm not taking the bait. Stop shoving it into my face. Dino 11:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Block for trolling

You have been blocked for 12 hours for trolling and your generally repulsive conduct regarding the Peter Roskam photo. You may think you were "right all along" about this photo, but if so, why not simply produce this information days ago? That would have ended this matter right there and then. Instead you insultingly claim the deletion was poltically motivated and attack people doing routine image maintenance. If it had been labeled properly in the first place (it was labeled "fair use" initially) it never would have been deleted. You've prologed a simple matter and made it an excruciating one. Wikipedia is a collaborative database and you need to work in a civil manner with others, not just ones you chose to be civil to or ones of your political persuasion. From now on insure that you conduct yourself with civility. Further baseless accusations and trolling will be met with further blocks. Gamaliel 03:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

ROLL

Just to let you know that I've changed "Dean" back to "Hinnen". I prefer to refer to parties by surnames, as it is more in keeping with formal journalistic style. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic arbitration case

The continual sniping on the Workshop page, and the sheer length of the page at this point, are going to make it almost impossible for the arbitrators to use effectively. Please limit any further contributions to the page to information that you think is necessary to a decision. I know this is difficult to do, but it's in everyone's best interest for the people who have to decide the case to be able to follow the arguments. Newyorkbrad 03:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You may find this hard to believe but I reached the same decision earlier today. FAAFA has persisted in posting there throughout the day, while I've laid off. Dino 03:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

More sniping (in fact, a barrage of heavy artillery) has occurred on both the Workshop and Evidence pages, by a "new user" who somehow found his way directly to those two pages, and figured out how to post a link embedded in his text, without posting on any other page at Wikipedia. Fancy that. You think he might be a sockpuppet? Or a meatpuppet? Dino 20:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing comments from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Evidence

Please do not remove comments from the workshop or evidence pages of this Arbitration case again. Removing comments is disruptive and you could be blocked if you do it repeatedly. — Moe 15:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The material I removed was in violation of one or more policies. Specifically, the policy forbidding tampering with someone else's evidence presentation and the policy against posting personal information about another user. Dino 15:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You sir are the one tampering with that person's evidence. If you would like that information to be deleted, not removed, request someone with oversight powers to investigate. Since I have seen your edits like this before though, I have a hunch you have already requested this and it has been denied, so I suggest you let the matter drop. — Moe 15:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your response and notice that you've carefully dodged the bit about "posting personal information about another user." Care to respond? Dino 15:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If you want my take on personal information here it is: It's unacceptable and a blockable offense for posting. The part your trying to hide is not personal information, meaning, the part you are trying to hide is your last name (I think?) and that is in your username. If you didn't want your real name spread across Wikipedia, you shouldn't have used it in your username to begin with. — Moe 15:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about my last name, but someone else's. He did not choose to reveal his last name. Dino 17:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why have you taken upon yourself to be his represenative for removing his name? — Moe 17:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am taking it upon myself to be the representative of the Wikipedia policy that forbids the posting of personal information. "It's unacceptable and a blockable offense for posting." Follow through on that, would you please? BenBurch and others have been busy all morning. If you do not stop them, they will only escalate this. Dino 17:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want this matter to be resolved, without you being blocked and without the information being spread than your going to have to do this without edit warring, reverting established editors and without sniping at people. — Moe 17:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely what I am trying to do sir. Right here, right now. Without edit warring, reverting established editors (except when they violate the policy you've just acknowledged) and without sniping at people. I have stopped trying to enforce the policy that you acknowledged should be enforced with blocks, and I've come to you.

Now please. Do something about it. Dino 17:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Rome wasn't built in a day. I'm happy to help you, but you must cooperate with me and others. First off, I need who you are speaking about (whose name you're trying to oversight) to be on Wikipedia. — Moe 17:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please check your e-mail. You have more than enough information to take the necessary action. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Dino 17:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I will reply on e-mail to avoid WP:BEANS. — Moe 17:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block

You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for removing other people's evidence at arbitration. If you believe another person's statement is inappropriate, respond in your own section or contact the case's clerk rather than altering it yourself. Durova^Charge! 22:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I was removing personal information about a Wikipedia member that had been posted in violation of Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, the paragraph by Eschoir was "tampering with another user's evidence." See the first section header here. Dino 23:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the clerk's job, not yours. This block received endorsement at ANI. Durova^Charge! 03:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The clerk I had contacted was responding from a Blackberry. He said he wouldn't be back online for several hours. Dino 04:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I will confirm that Dino contacted me via e-mail and I responded that I would be unable to look at the page for a few hours. I do not know whether any of the other arbitration clerks were available or whether Dino tried to reach them. The status of the information redacted as "personal information" could be questioned given the other information already available. Given my prior involvement I won't rule on the unblock request but any unblocking should be conditioned on a commitment to stay away from any further modifications to the workshop or evidence. Newyorkbrad 04:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I was removing personal information about a Wikipedia member that had been posted in violation of Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, the paragraph by Eschoir was "tampering with another user's evidence." See the first section header here. The clerk I had contacted was responding from a Blackberry. He said he wouldn't be back online for several hours. Thatcher (the other clerk) he can confirm that I also attempted to contact him by e-mail and received no immediate response. Regarding the "endorsement," Moe said, "I would agree to a block if he continues." Se he didn't endorse an immediate block. Thatcher said, "Concur." That was all. Not exactly enthusiastic support, or even consensus. In e-mail communications with both clerks, I've stated that I will not be editing any of the ArbCom pages again, and I repeat that here: I will not be editing any of the ArbCom pages again. Dino 04:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been unblocked on the basis of your commitment to refrain from editing ArbCom pages. --  Netsnipe  ►  10:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for being a calming influence on Talk:New antisemitism... —Ashley Y 22:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln Page

Though I removed what I consider to be an unnecessary header that you added to Abraham Lincoln, I understand the sentiment behind it. That introduction is far too long, and should be synthesized into other sections of the main article. I will try to take a look at it when I get the chance. Any help you could offer on synthesizing the info into the main article would be appreciated.K. Scott Bailey 17:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Tancredo

You added:

• Tancredo has cited recommendations from the 9/11 Commission, recommending that experience and continuity of service in Congress should be considered more important than term limits, as the motive for his change in position.

to "Tom Tancredo". However you didn't provide a source and I can't find anything on Google about this. Can you please add your source to the article before it gets deleted? Thanks, -Will Beback · † · 03:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Pockets of resistance on DYK for 7 March 2007

On 7 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pockets of resistance, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! — ERcheck (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No email?

Well, you don't seem to have an active email address... -Vontafeijos 06:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)