Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | Free Republic

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

1 Evidence presented by User:Tbeatty
2 Evidence presented by Dino
3 Evidence presented by User:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All
4 Evidence presented by User:BenBurch
5 Statement by Billy Hathorn
6 Statement by user:Jossi
7 Statement by Durova
8 Statement by an uninvolved observer
9 Statement received by e-mail from BryanFromPalatine
10 Evidence presented by American Politics Journal
11 Evidence presented by CBDunkerson
12 Evidence presented by JzG
13 Evidence presented by Eschoir
14 Evidence presented by dman727

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Tbeatty

Note: some of this material was collected 3 months ago by other editors and has been rearranged with some new material added. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All has more information.

NBGPWS (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu)
Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Since the RfC, the evidence shows that he has not learned to be civil or to abide by the rules of wikipedia.

The 3/15/2007 coup de grâce.

[edit] User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/User:NBGPWS uses personal attack

False accusations and personal attacks (3/12/2007) [2] and more [3]
Baiting/personal attacks - campaigning against editor on User page (3/8/2007) [4]
And (3/5/2007) [5]
As part of this ArbCom as I was looking for more misconduct.[6]. And repeated [7] after asked to stop.
Very recent (2/26/2007) attacks [8][9][10]
Typical attack [11]
A recent personal attacks on User:DeanHinnen.[12]
Attack on another user [13][14][15]
Threating a user for editing wikipedia all from work on your employer's network and your employer's time. In case you aren't aware of it Dean, Germans take a very dim view of hate speech, and even have laws restricting it. [16]
Accusing editor and threatening because of AfD. [17][18]
And taunting [19]

"deletionists" / "deletionist hit squad" - [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

"Wiki Stalinists" - [25]
"Moron" - [26]
"WHAT???? If you think THAT'S an attack, You need more (or less) Byron!" - [27]

Note: Byron reffering to The Byron Technique, "a sexual technique in which two male homosexual partners are involved" [28] [29]

"There is NO justification to remove the numerous reviews! Acting out in bitterness over the disasterous election results, huh?" - [30]
"Back to the 'Conspiracy Theories'! What's with you guys? Thank g_d you have your own club!" - [31]
"Wiki RepubliCon Cabal" & "FREEPER SCUM DEATH MERCHANTS !" - [32]
[33] "so the Wiki RepubliCon Cabal who deleted his entry SOLELY because it reflected VERY badly on the (mostly) Conservatives bloggers, Freepers and Scamdy Posters"

[edit] User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/User:NBGPWS stalks other editors

Even after knowing that there is a dispute going to ArbCom, this user follows Dino simply to revert him at an article he has never edited before. And he admits to following him and that it will continue. Keep in mind this is after he has been warned multiple times to disengage this editor. [34][35][36][37]
And another first edit [38]. Followed by a personal attack in the comment section. [39]

[edit] User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/User:NBGPWS is tendentious and disruptive

FAAFA/NBGPWS has created bad blood between a number of editors.

(3/12/2007) reverts the RfAr clerk on an arbitration talk page with sniping edit comment. [40]
(3/11/2007) baiting and inflammatory edits [41][42]
(3/9/2007) inflammatory edit summary [43].
Free Republic (3/1/2007) spamming editors to try to get help with non-consensus spin. [44][45][46][47][48][49][50]
Here we see another a recent engagement with an editor on the BLP noticeboard.
Here is a bizarre accusation and threat. You'll be hearing a LOT more about what some feel is your intentional misuse of BLP, beatty after I made this edit and similar other edits.
Even in this arbcom proceeding. [51] Repeats it [52]. Asked to refactor, refuses. [53].
Here he attributes a quote to me. I point out that I did not make that statement (in fact, I was advocating for the other side in that dispute) and all I did was fix formatting so that names and words weren't merged (I added spaces)[54]. Now he claims that adding spaces is an edorsement of the views I argued against [55]. It's absolutely ludicrous but par for the course for this tendentious editor.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

[edit] WP:BLP

Just an example here. He calls a person a gay prostitute based on the editorial of a political opponent and repeats it as fact after being refactored. Also calls an Episcopal bishop a 'homophobe' and provides sources that don't use that word. He was asked to refactor it and seems to come to the conclusion that "gay prostitute" is okay, as is homophobe but latin "cum" (as in "cum laude" is offensive. This is one example of many,many such edits. He as repeated this particular libel on at least 4 Wikipedia pages, including this ArbCom. --Tbeatty 02:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT / WP:3RR / WP:VANDAL

[56] [57] [58] [59]

NBGPWS decided to spam a noticeboard that he did not agree with, adding material obviously not in line with the conspiracy theory angle of the noticeboard. He began adding an article on homosexual acts repeatedly as noted above. He was blocked for the behaviour by Luna Santin [60] who cited 3RR violation, disruption and WP:POINT violation. User has since admitted to violating WP:POINT [61] I and others regarded this incident as vandalism.
Edits other users comments and signatures and inserts vulgarities. [62]. And repeats it afer being asked not to in the comment [63].[64]

[edit] WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA

"deletionists" / "deletionist hit squad" - [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]
"Wiki Stalinists" - [70]
"Moron" - [71]
"WHAT???? If you think THAT'S an attack, You need more (or less) Byron!" - [72]

Note: Byron reffering to The Byron Technique, "a sexual technique in which two male homosexual partners are involved" [73] [74]
"There is NO justification to remove the numerous reviews! Acting out in bitterness over the disasterous election results, huh?" - [75]
"Back to the 'Conspiracy Theories'! What's with you guys? Thank g_d you have your own club!" - [76]
"Wiki RepubliCon Cabal" & "FREEPER SCUM DEATH MERCHANTS !" - [77]

Note this dif is provided below for proof of AGF as well.

[edit] WP:AGF

[78] "so the Wiki RepubliCon Cabal who deleted his entry SOLELY because it reflected VERY badly on the (mostly) Conservatives bloggers, Freepers and Scamdy Posters"

[edit] Disruption / Threats

[79] "You'll be hearing a LOT more about what some feel is your intentional misuse of BLP, beatty. A LOT more."

Comment repeated [80]
[81] "As much as your OWN behavior and justification for it helped you LAST TIME, huh? LOL!"
[82] "If I desire your feedback, I'll post to YOUR user page!"

User was blocked for the above series of comments by MONGO [83], stated reason of disruption.
[84] "Nuclear, you CAN'T just post your comments at the top, the page goes in time order, repost them where they belong, at or near the bottom of the page. You know better than that! ANI nex time you do it"
[85] "You're currently on probation for the exact sort of behavior you're exhibiting here, and did on the Votergate talk page, as well. You might consider changing that behavior before you get banned"

This is in response to the below WP:C violation when I asked the user for proof the producers released the movie for download on YouTube.

[edit] WP:C

[86][87][88]

User contended as noted above that producers released the video for public download on YouTube. When asked for proof, none was presented and instead the link was readded.

[edit] Spamming

Free Republic (3/1/2007) spamming editors to try to get help with non-consensus spin. [89][90][91][92][93][94][95]
[96] " I just discovered you were Zer0Faults too! Zer0faults has abandoned that account and opened a new account"

User spammed this in about 3 different places, before posting here they spammed it on my talk page twice, purposeful disruption. Dif's of previous posts, note the edit summaries: [97][98][99]

[edit] Other

Accusations:

[100] - "HD was NOT produced by HBO. One must question why nuclear insists on repeatedly inserting false info into the article"

Note: at no point did I ever write it was.
Vote stacking:

[101] "ANOTHER politically motivated AfD! ... No wonder they want to delete it." -

[102] "The actions of these editors are all laid out right here. Votergate featured Andy Stepehenson who was the subject of a bitter AfD."

[edit] WP:NOT

Soapbox:

[103] "March to CNN for Anti-War Tribunal"

Warning given for it - [104]
Battleground: Posting of comments from political hotbed forums.

[105] [106]

Attempting to import off wiki arguements and general drama into Wikipedia space.

[edit] WP:U

NBGPWS = NeoConsBegoneProtestWarriorsSuck [107]

Proof of acronym - [108]

Also uses the name PWS (Protest Warriors Suck) on DemocraticWarrior.com

[edit] Evidence presented by Dino

[edit] Introduction

As anticipated, there has been an effort by Admin JzG, and there may be a strong temptation on the part of Arbitrators to say, "A pox on both your houses" and ban all three of us. I encourage Arbitrators to resist this temptation and look past the rhetoric at the facts.

There are two factors here that make the conduct of BenBurch and FAAFA inexcusable.

1. Gang tactics.

2. Wikistalking.

These two factors multiply their harassment and intimidation exponentially. The effects of these forms of misconduct are cumulative. Their ceaseless baiting, personal attacks, mockery, general incivility and edit warring should be seen as mitigating factors in my conduct here. It's hard for me to imagine anyone who would endure that much abuse for that long without countermeasures of some sort. But JzG condemns my efforts to seek a remedy from administrators, or from dispute resolution, as "vexatious."

Nevertheless I am responsible for my own actions. I accept responsibility for my part in the difficulties here, and I apologize. The community and the valuable work it has been doing have been disrupted. If The New York Times is the first draft of history, this is the second draft. It has to be done right.

[edit] COI issues

I have addressed COI concerns about me by voluntarily refraining to edit the Free Republic article. This is a self-imposed restriction. If only other parties with obvious COI problems, such as BenBurch and FAAFA, would be this proactive. This entire unpleasantness would have been avoided.

BenBurch is the founder and administrator of a website called WhiteRoseSociety.org which seeks to prove that the Bush Administration represents the rise of fascism in America. "Fighting the Rise of the New Fascism." The website has provided several puerile "Bush = Hitler" references in the past. Since the lead of the Free Republic article described it as a "rubber stamp for Bush Administration policy" for a couple of months, the COI should be obvious. BenBurch also acknowledges that he was a long-term and active member of Democratic Underground, a left-wing rival of Free Republic, before he was banned. (That admission was made on his Talk page and he recently deleted links to his archives, thereby concealing and effectively destroying the evidence against him.)

FAAFA has also admitted that he is a member of DU, posting there "at least once or twice a week." [109] He speaks in hushed and reverent tones about BenBurch's work on WhiteRoseSociety.org. The COI problems of these two should be very, very clear.

[edit] BenBurch has been recruiting meatpuppets

BenBurch has actively recruited left-wing meatpuppets to participate at Wikipedia, skewing articles from NPOV to a left-wing perspective. His first known effort was in October 2005. [110] One can only speculate about subsequent efforts, since he has demonstrated an extremely sharp learning curve in developing efforts to conceal his misconduct.

[edit] Sockpuppet claims, WMF and TJ Walker

I will decline to present any evidence regarding my brother, or contacts made to WMF and TJ Walker until the Committee has ruled on my preliminary motions.

It's unfortunate that BFP 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. BenBurch and FAAFA 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 him but me" attitude, which has also contributed to the current dynamic.

Regarding the sockpuppet claim that others just keep trying to resurrect, despite the fact that it was cremated by the truth weeks ago, I point in this direction: “Not a sockpuppet.” I was called a “paragon of civility.” I revealed a substantial amount of personal information to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that I am not a sockpuppet. Please consider how much baiting and harassment had to occur, in order to induce a "paragon of civility" to engage in any form of incivility.

[edit] The original dispute

This started as a content dispute with episodes of edit warring and incivility on one article. Normally it would merit warnings and 24-hour blocks. I perceive a systemic left-wing bias in politically related articles everywhere I look on Wikipedia. A side-by-side comparison of the Peter Roskam article (February 5 version) and the Melissa Bean article illustrates the problem. A side-by-side comparison of the Free Republic article (January 7 version) and the Democratic Underground article also illustrates the problem. In each comparison, one article reads like an advertising brochure; the other reads like a hatchet job.

As I said at Unblock-en-l, I recognize that Free Republic, and other conservative organizations and politicians, have their share of warts and blemishes. I do not want to whitewash them despite accusations to the contrary by others. I want fair and balanced articles about them. However, others want to put the warts and blemishes under a microscope. They want to make Wikipedia articles all about the warts and blemishes of conservative organizations and politicians.

I tried RfM. BenBurch almost immediately refused, stating at the time that since he was taking a two-week break from the Free Republic article, he didn't want mediation; ignoring the inevitability of his later resumption of this conflict, either at that article or elsewhere. (Eventually he went out of his way to be sure that the conflict was resumed.)

On the "strong suggestion" of JzG, for a couple of days I stayed away from the Free Republic article. It has been the scene of many arguments and a lot of baiting and badgering by BenBurch and FAAFA. JzG also advised the two of them, in the strongest possible terms, to leave me alone. I thought that moving to a different article might make a difference.

[edit] I left; they followed; this is Wikistalking

They abandoned that article and followed me to the Peter Roskam article, where their baiting and badgering continues unabated, directed at myself and at others. This escalated the situation from a case of content dispute and incivility to a case of Wikistalking. The relevant Wikipedia policy page linked here contains the precedents decided by ArbCom in similar cases. Results ranged from a one-year ban to a permanent ban for the stalkers.

I disengaged. They followed. I gave them warnings and cited WP:STALK. They ignored my warnings. Just as they have ignored so many, many previous warnings, and continued their abusive conduct. Arbitrators are asked to bear in mind also that since there are two of them and only one of me, the effect of their constant baiting and harassment has been increased exponentially.

I am not responsible for this escalation, and attempted to remain civil. Review of the Peter Roskam article's history proves that I started editing it and then they did. This is not a coincidence. Please take note of the consistent tone of mockery in these diffs, such as the frequent interjection of "LOL!" [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126]

FAAFA was using a question from the Free Republic discussion as his pretext to pursue me and ceaselessly demand an answer at the Peter Roskam article. I informed FAAFA that I did not appreciate his Wikistalking, that he no longer had an excuse for it since I had provided the answer he had repeatedly demanded, and asked him to stop: [127] But the baiting and badgering continued from both of them, unabated: [128] [129] [130] I again advised FAAFA that he had his answer, added more material that should have been the end of the matter, and gave him a final warning about his Wikistalking: [131] BenBurch got another cheap shot in: [132]

[edit] Final warnings issued

At that point, I posted an unequivocal final warning about their Wikistalking on both of their User Talk pages: [133] [134] Then I wandered off and edited a few more articles, hoping that would be the end of it. FAAFA just kept coming back for more, but I ignored it for an hour or two: [135] But then both of them started baiting and badgering again. [136] [137] [138] And BenBurch even said, "By the way, Dino, you want to complain that I am Wikistalking? 'Bring it on.' " [139]

So I went to WP:ANI. That should have been the end of it. I don't have much of a problem with any other editor, certainly nothing that couldn't have been worked out. But JzG deliberately refused to enforce the official policy and ArbCom precedents contained in WP:STALK, going so far as to post an animated GIF that represented me beating a dead horse. Their deliberate defiance of WP:STALK couldn't be more obvious, and yet JzG and others refused to enforce your policy. And here, they continue to refuse any acknowledgement that WP:STALK has been violated.

BenBurch and FAAFA both continue to follow me wherever I go on Wikipedia, attempting to start a new edit war. They have continued baiting and edit warring on Peter Roskam. [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] The latest episode on February 13 and February 26 is typical. [146] [147] They have also Wikistalked me to the Nancy Pelosi and Bill Nelson articles, again engaging in edit warring and baiting, and compounding their misconduct. [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154]

[edit] The utter uselessness of warnings and 24-hour blocks

The archives of FAAFA's Talk page (in his current guise and his previous guise as NBGPWS) are wallpapered with warnings, and he has recently returned from a 24-hour block for incivility. The same can be said for BenBurch with the minor distinction that he returned from his 24-hour block for incivility and misrepresentations about two weeks ago. BenBurch admits that his entire purpose was to bait me into incivility: "I can think of no other way to force him to get the attention of enough admins to finally get one of them to deal with him." [155] Even after the community solution from WP:ANI, FAAFA has continued his baiting. [156] Some of the examples are exceptionally mean-spirited. [157]

[edit] Conclusion

I realize that I have made mistakes in the past and I apologize for those mistakes. I accept responsibility for my actions. Over the past few days, I have redoubled my efforts to remain civil despite their baiting. I believe that my contrib history confirms this. But as my conduct improved, theirs grew worse. They escalated from a content dispute with moments of incivility to Wikistalking, and their two-against-one gang tactics are inexcusable. Dino 04:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All

[edit] About the old outdated RfC used as evidence by TBeatty

Outside view of Che Nuevara

This RfC is part of a larger and far more complex issue currently going on at Talk:Democratic Underground.

Several months ago there was a dispute over the external links section of the page. I came in to mediate the dispute, and eventually a rough consensus was built on some, but not all, of the links. The involved parties agreed to defer to my judgment until a more amenable solution could be found.

As I recall, FAAFA was not involved in the discussion at the time, but came later, as a number of people not involved in the original discussion were drawn to the article by a variety of means (it was a topic of significant discussion at my RfA, among other things).

Recently it seems that things have taken a turn for the worse. Personal attacks of all shapes and sizes seem to be startlingly common now. It also seems that the fight over this article has surfaced on outside, as was evidenced on the recent WP:PAIN post.

A cursory glance at the DU talk page ought to convince anybody that this issue is far more complicated than just the behavior of FAAFA. There are many people involved in this dispute, most of whom have acted in ways not particularly civil or reasonable. FAAFA is by no means the only editor acting in this manner. (It bears noting that Nuclear, the one bringing this RfC, has been remarkably quiet in this dispute recently.)

Thus I believe that this RfC is disingenuous to what is actually going on here. There are a number of issues here; the actions of many editors on this page are unfortunate and perhaps even reprehensible, but to levy an RfC against one editor of the many involved in this dispute is a problem. It seems to me to be a bad idea in that it a) does not address the entire problem, b) takes incidents out of context, and c) attempts to hold one editor accountable for a dispute while giving the others involved a by.

I'm by no means saying that FAAFA ought to continue the way he has been acting in this dispute. But I don't think this is the way to go about this. An RfC regarding this dispute would have to include the behavior of almost all the editors involved in the DU dispute.

Users who endorse this summary:

Che Nuevara 02:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
many more

[edit] Regarding Dean Hinnen

I don't know if I'll present any more evidence that I already have below. The observations of the numerous impartial and non-involved admins who have documented and commented on DeanHinnen's conduct speak with a much louder voice than anything I can say.

Conclusive uncontestable proof shows that Hinnen was wholly and intentionally dishonest and deceitful from day one, and acted far outside the bounds of acceptable user conduct by coercing a WMF employee to edit on his behalf through misrepresentation, deceit, and duplicity, along with implied and/or overt threats of legal action - all which justified and even mandated my suspension of AGF towards Hinnen, as permissible under AGF. I am so positive that Hinnen's specious claim that TJ Walker 'admitted' to him that 'he didn't write' his 1999 article - the spurious claim that is responsible for this whole sordid mess is a fabrication - that If I am wrong, I implore the Arbitration committee to permanently ban me.

Hinnen's very first edit (Jan. 15 edit #1) was to the Free Republic article discussion page announcing that he had coerced WMF employee Carolyn Doran (not a lawyer - not an active editor, and as such, not an expert on WP) to edit on his behalf, to his POV, after claiming that he (Hinnen) had contacted noted and notable author, pundit, and media coach TJ Walker (CBS and National Review and TJ's Insights) who supposedly 'admitted' to Hinnen that he 'did not write' his 1999 article entitled Is the FreeRepublic.Com Really DeathThreat.Com? ( webarchive of article) Hinnen claimed (in his very first edit): "I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." (quotation marks Hinnen's) and raised the spectre of a possible libel suit against Wikipedia if she didn't. - FAAFA 06:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

American Politics Journal's publisher had a conversation on Monday, March 12 with Charles Doerksen, the highly-regarded litigator who is in fact the lawyer of record for Free Republic LLC. He was not aware of "Dean"'s recent e-mails to Wikipedia or APJ. It would be safe to say that Wikipedia can quite comfortably disregard any threats emanating from the e-mail account of one "Dean" Hinnen. something tells me that he might also be interested in the Hinnen sock drawer. -- Apj-us-nyc 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TBeatty has misused BLP and has been mendacious

work in progress

Posted by Jim Robinson, Free Republic's founder in 1999, when he was vehemently anti-bush:

To: Freedom Wins

"So, it doesn't matter if he snorted coke as a youth? It was a long time ago, a youthful indiscretion? Kinda like people who frequented sneakeasies during prohibition? Kind of a cute story, eh? Well, how about all the people whose lives have been destroyed by being arrested for the felony of drug possession? What about the millions of people who are rotting away in your filthy drug infested prisons at this very moment?

Well, by God, if you people insist on electing another cokehead as President, you damned well better throw open all the prison cell doors and free every man, woman, and child you're holding on drug charges. And if you're gonna elect another drug felon as President, you'd better rescind each and every one of your unconstitutional drug laws now on the books, including all of your unconstitutional search and seizure laws, and your asset forfeiture laws, and your laws that enable your unconstitutional snooping into our bank accounts and cash transactions. Well, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You people are sick! Conservatives my ass. You people are nothing but a bunch of non-thinking hypocrits! You're a shame and a disgrace to the Republic!

And, I, for one, am tired of taking orders from cokeheads and felons! Elect another one and I'll tell you what. I'll be ready for war! It'll be time to take up arms and run the filthy lying bastards out!"

2 Posted on 08/20/1999 03:19:31 PDT by Jim Robinson REPLY #2 - You accuse me of misquoting him or misinterpeting him???! Fairness & Accuracy For All

Yes, you misquoted him. He did not call Bush a cokehead and a felon. He is chastising the WP for allowing Bush to not answer questions about it. To wit, Bush is President and Robinson doesn't seem all that upset. But I doubt he would be happy if the U.S. elected another Clinton so he wants those questions asked and answered (drug use and felonies). --Tbeatty 15:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC) link - FAAFA 06:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Misc - Counter evidence to TBeatty's 'cum' issue

I explained my Latin use of the word 'cum' because TBeatty seemed unfamilar with the usage, as he complained about me calling Jeff Gannon a 'cum-gay-prositute', not just a 'gay prostitute' - leading me and possibly others to believe that TBeatty thought my use of the word 'cum' denoted semen, male ejaculate, spermatozoa, sperm (slang) cum, jism, wad, spunk, spooge, load, man-juice, etc. - FAAFA 05:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TBeatty's bias and stated agenda

He [NBGPWS/FAAFA] should be banned indefinetely for exhausting the patience of the community. --User:Tbeatty 01:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC) link

I would support an RFC or ArbCom. But we shouldn't need it. He should be banned for "exhausting the communities patience" and this can be done by any admin for an indefinite amount of time. It happens quite frequently but usually only when an admin has been pised off.--Tbeatty 04:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also asked for Admin intervention for "exhausting the communities patience." See the PW talk page or NBGPWS's talk page. --Tbeatty 06:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a consensus thing so a short concurrence or objection is probably all that's needed.--Tbeatty 06:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

MONGO (one of my mentors ;-) quotes

Quite frankly...who gives a crap what you think? The event happened in the U.S. and your anti-American bias is so obvious you can cut it with a knive so shove off. I don't go into articles about events that happened in countries outside the U.S. and tell them they're biased. You're failure to see that the events of 9/11 were textbook level definitions of terrorism betray your obvious anti-American bias. Stop wasting our time with this radical nonsense. -MONGO 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I'll spin it the UN way.--MONGO 04:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, islamofascists it is then.--MONGO 12:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, what a bunch of bullshit.--MONGO 20:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding those quotes Tbeatty repeatedly copyedited the comments of another user who wrote "Well you've seen some of my favorite Mongo quotes, some of them rather witty (some not), and now Morton also presented Sebhcanquotes, which are also rather amusing and humorous… or not. imo there is nothing that much outrageous in all this, certainly some reflections are a bit poisonous, but if I've noticed anything while here, then it would be passion of some discussions…" link possibly indicating his endorsement of these views. I know I would never copyedit (for punctuation, spelling, etc) comments that I disagreed with. He also unabashedly defended MONGO throughout (and after) this RfA, choosing to ignore MONGO's many attacks against people who weren't 'ED trolls' but long-time valued editors. - FAAFA 01:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tbeatty created a sock puppet account to harass me

Tbeatty created this sock puppet User:Fairness_and_Accuracy_for_Aquaman "Tbeatty's Super Friend Sock Puppet account" solely to taunt and harass me by vandalizing my user page. see He complains about my actions when his own actions are as bad or worse, and he even created a sock puppet account solely to taunt and harass me. FAAFA

[edit] Tbeatty editwarred and removed sourced material at Peter Roskam

Tbeatty arrived at Peter Roskam within 24 hours of BenBurch to join DeanHinnen in edit warring and pushing his POV. (some might even claim 'Wikistalking'!) He argued that clearly defining Roskam's abortion stance by stating that he is against abortion except when the mother's life is in danger, but not in cases of rape or incest was a 'Willie Horton' style smear. He went ON and ON about this ! Here is some of what I wrote, proving the hollowness of his POV attempts to obfuscate.

The leading anti-abortion orgs and Christian FAQs all appear to discuss the 'except in rape / incest' option - and all the reports I found on SD's failed anti abortion initiative discuss it.

South Dakota votes against ban of almost all abortions

(AP) -- South Dakotans rejected a toughest-in-the-nation law that would have banned virtually all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest -- defeating one of the most high-profile state measures facing voters Tuesday. CNN

Christian Answers rape Incest

Abortion Facts incest and abortion

National Right to Life: NRLC - abortion "A June 1999 Wirthlin poll found that 62% of Americans support legal abortion in only three or fewer circumstances: when the pregnancy results from rape or incest or when it threatens the life of the mother."

Without casting aspersions - I contend that the most egregious POV pushing which may be occuring is by those who are trying to prevent this article from painting a clear picture of Roskam's well-defined abortion stance. It seems they are actually ashamed of what the good congressman stands for! I wonder if the good congressman is similarly ashamed (I think not) and what he would think of such blatant obfuscation? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC) (I have to admit to a little trolling there !) FaAfA 01:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence in response to BryanFromPalatine's charges

One would expect that an active member of Free Republic's legal team, as BryanFromPalatine claims to be, who claims that he flew out to California to help with FR's legal defense, and was harassed in real life, would have written about these significant matters on Free Republic. He didn't.

Here are the posts I've found so far which directly relate to BryanFromPalatine and his brother DeanHinnen's claims made here on Wiki regarding these matters:

troll DU and other lib sites, post phony threats

Bryan is paralegal

Bryan admits to trolling DNC forum

link

Bryan 'a LONG TIME trouble maker on message boards'

link

link - more coming (just realized that many of these links go to threads, not BryanFromPalatines individual posts, will update) - FaAfA 07:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More

Bryan wrote: "I helped them reduce a damages judgment against them in the Los Angeles Times lawsuit, from more than $1 million to $10,000. Since it was a fairly small outfit at the time, this prevented them from going under. The lunatic left-wing fringe had hoped that this damages judgment would destroy Free Republic. When the news of the settlement was released they became positively furious." This is one of the most ridiculous claims I've ever read in my life! For two years Freepers claimed that they were going to win the lawsuit - rewrite copyright law - and make history. The thought 'L.A Times vs Free Republic' would be another Roe v Wade. They LOST the lawsuit. You think lefties care if corporate giants get monetary damages? Ha! I looked through the archives of DU. Not a single post 'upset' about the reduction of damages from $1,000,000 to $10,000. Not one. Just glee after FR bragged that they would defeat the 'Socialist Propoganda Machine' and they lost. I also looked for any posts from Bryan alleged stalking or harrassement. Not a single one of those either. Check the links above. He admits to being a paralegal, not a lawyer. The Free Republic legal team was impressive alraight. Impressively inept. They filed charges against a notorious troll ( a conservative troll by the way) They filed the charges, and spent 10's of 1000's of dollars in legal fees - and then found out they filed the charges in the wrong state! LOL ! - FaAfA (yap) 03:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:BenBurch

WORK IN PROGRESS

[edit] User:BryanFromPalatine is a multiple user of abusive Sock Puppets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalatine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalantine_%28new%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalatine_%283rd%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalatine_%284th%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/ArlingtonTX

[edit] User:BryanFromPalatine used his sock puppets to create vexatious processes in revenge for entirely proper Sock Puppet and Check User processes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BenBurch

[edit] User:DeanHinnen took over his putative brother's agenda in such a fashion as to meet the term of art Meat Puppet

[edit] User:DeanHinnen is an attorney who has represented Free Republic and is in clear COI in any dealing with that subject

[edit] User:DeanHinnen is a multiple user of abusive Sock Puppets

[edit] User:DeanHinnen used a sock puppet and banned User:BryanFromPalatine to support a failed bad faith RfD against User:BenBurch

[edit] Anonymous IP editors from a variety of probable open proxies have supported both User:BryanFromPalatine and User:DeanHinnen in their legal threats against Wikipedia, in attacking User:BenBurch and in making physical threats against several editors.

[edit] User:BenBurch's Sock Puppet and Check User processes have been entirely proper and in fact returned positive results in all cases except one, later found to also be a sock puppet]]

[edit] Statement by Billy Hathorn

BenBurch and FAAFA seem to think alike. I have watched them occasionally on the Free Republic article. Everywhere the two go, they want their own way. Anyone who opposes any of their edits for any reason is insulted and accused of being a sock puppet. Maybe both should have been banned from all the articles that they "watch" over. But I don't like banning people: it decreases the discourse.

I don't "watch over" article: I go to them to make corrections or additions and deletions when appropriate.

Isn't Dino just trying to defend himself? Why punish him for self-defense?

What about the administrator(s) over FAAFA and Ben? Is he(she) really unbiased? Who was it, I forget, with all the crossfire, that posted Bryan from Palatine's last name. Since Bryan used his home town as part of his screen name, it was a snap for one to find his phone number and his address on the Internet and post a link to it. I would have never done that.

One of the problems with the Free Republic article is potential libel about death threats. What about the sources of the death threats? Is it possible that someone got to the Free Republic site and put the death threats there to discredit Free Republic?.

Are Ben and FAAFA being fair to different viewpoints? I don't understand why they watch over these articles, like a mother hen over her eggs almost.

Dino should be given a chance to edit. I am not exactly sure who did what, how, or when. Maybe all could be put on probation and each allowed back on after a month, then a second one a month later, then the third a month after that. By then maybe everyone will have forgotten what all the fuss is about.

Billy Hathorn 00:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by user:Jossi

I offered and attempted to act as an informal mediator during December 2006 (See Talk:Free_Republic/Archive4#Informal_mediation.) We had a good start and an initial agreement from involved editors to improve a Talk:Free_Republic/Archive5#Compromise_version, but very quickly it degenerated into a battleground in which everything was fair game, including abusive sockpuppetry, focus on editors viewpoints rather than the improvement of the article, and a total mess of intrigues and multiple attempts to game the system, in particular by pro-Free Republic editors.

The behavior of editors need to be assessed in the context of the abusive sockpuppetry and the disruption caused by it, and the possible legal imbroglio with the involvement of an editor who seem to be a lawyer representing the Free Republic website. As with other articles in which there are strong POVs at play, only when editors engage constructively there is a chance for making progress toward a compliant article. As the comments by involved editors show above, they have chosen to bring their political disagreements over to Wikipedia. The ArbCom should consider asserting the community's viewpoint related to WP:NOT and define some remedies that will curtail the use of Wikipedia for political battles by these editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Durova

In support of Jossi, I would like to add that the involvement by a Wikimedia Foundation employee was particularly troubling from my perspective as an independent administrator. At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive71#Talk:Free_Republic I started a thread to discuss that edit - which I would technically class as a violation of WP:VANDAL yet, in the context of the article talk discussion, it appeared probable that this employee had acted in good faith based on claims by involved editors that the reference in question was fraudulent. I'd like to see some clear precedent established, either on the ArbCom side or on the foundation side, designating what is or is not appropriate intervention by the Foundation's staff. Under the circumstances I felt I had no choice but to refer the matter to arbitration and considered it only a matter of time before other experienced editors reached the same conclusion.

In a broader sense, I'd class this dispute with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education as an off-wiki dispute that migrated to our site. Currently, arbitration appears to be the only solution for this type of dispute unless the problem is entirely one sided. Given Wikipedia's overall rise in popularity, I anticipate more cases of this type that may strain the committee's capacity. Now would be a good time to brainstorm ways to transfer some of these disputes into community solutions. The committee may wish to anticipate such a transfer in its ruling. Durova^Charge! 20:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The evidence statement by the IP address below is a classic example of sockpuppetry. People who are truly uninvolved observers and offer complex analysis based upon extensive reading don't post long arbitration evidence statements as their first (and thus far only) edit. At least one person appears to be going considerably out of the way to game Wikipedia's system. I encourage strong action by the committee to discourage copycats. Durova^Charge! 21:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by an uninvolved observer

No, I'm not a sock puppet. Check my IP address. It's nowhere near Palatine, and I should clear up any lingering doubts in the next paragraph. I'm writing this from a public Internet cafe without logging in, because I don't care to become a target of retaliation if these accounts don't get banned.

BryanFromPalatine – Don’t hesitate. Endorse the ban. Multiple incidents of sockpuppetry, disruptive editing, revert warring, POV pushing and incivility. He just doesn't have the emotional stability or self-discipline necessary to be a part of this project.

BenBurch and F.A.A.F.A. -- Ban both of them. Wikistalking can't be tolerated. This factor alone should earn them a lifetime ban. Disruptive editing, gang tactics, revert warring, POV pushing and incivility, all on a fairly continuous basis for over a year. Repeatedly adding badly sourced negative information to the lead of an article about Free Republic, which has previously sued and won for libel.

BenBurch may be less disruptive, but he cut his own throat when he announced his Wikistalking intentions: "I can think of no other way to force him to get the attention of enough admins to finally get one of them to deal with him." It is astonishing that they have avoided a ban this long, and makes me despair for the future of the entire project. He has been too willing to play "Good Cop Bad Cop" with FAAFA. When people do that, they're both "Bad Cops." Their continued presence here is emblematic of the miserable failure of administrators to deal with them properly. Every admin who saw what they were doing and refused to do anything but issue another warning is a disgrace.

Dino -- Out of this entire bunch, this is the only one worth an attempt to salvage -- because he's new and he might be rehabilitated. POV pushing and some questionable issues surrounding WMF and a call to TJ Walker's office. Revert warring, COI, brief incivility and vexatious process are slightly mitigated by the fact that he was being baited every step of the way like MONGO. Block him for a week, followed by a permanent ban from editing Free Republic and civility parole. Any legal concerns he may have about Free Republic can never be posted here at Wikipedia. Instead, he must raise them through an e-mail to his mentor (see below). Addressing legal concerns in a very non-specific way, through his proposed change in Wikipedia policy, could be productive. At the end of the six months, ArbCom revisits the issue and asks for a report from the mentor, contemplating four options: lifting the civility parole, allowing it to end as scheduled, extending it, or imposing a permanent ban.

He's right about the Unblock list, up to a certain point. After all that, any of us who failed to give him the benefit of the doubt was in violation of WP:AGF. That includes a couple of the admins.

Prodego -- One-week block, followed by being desysopped for six months. On January 15 he deliberately revealed personal info about a pseudonymous editor, inviting harassment of that editor. Repeated failure to deal with the problems caused by BenBurch, F.A.A.F.A. and Dino, despite supervision of Free Republic during many of the worst episodes. During the desysopped period, he serves as Dino's mentor. He will monitor Dino's edits, provide on-the-spot guidance, and provide additional advice via e-mail and Dino's Talk page. He will communicate Dino's legal concerns regarding the Free Republic article, if he finds that they are valid concerns.

Jossi – Desysopped for one month. Repeated failure to deal with the problems caused by BenBurch, F.A.A.F.A. and BryanFromPalatine and his army of socks, despite constant supervision of Free Republic during the worst episodes.

JzG (Guy) -- Ban him too. At an absolute minimum, he should be permanently desysopped and blocked for a month. He has no business being an administrator. On February 19, he deliberately revealed personal info about a pseudonymous editor, inviting harassment of that editor. His edits in the Workshop are loaded with exaggerations. He joined BenBurch and F.A.A.F.A. in their gang tactics and Wikistalking, refusing to enforce a policy about stalking. On his User page, he admits that he suffers from clinical depression. At the risk of sounding like I discriminate, we do not need an administrator like this one. He's leaving a trail of angry, unproductive editors behind him wherever he goes. It's very destructive to the project. Like Bryan, he doesn't have the emotional stability or self-discipline necessary to be a part of this project. 69.215.153.214 15:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement received by e-mail from BryanFromPalatine

Clerk note: I received the statement below in an e-mail this morning stating that it was from BryanFromPalatine and requesting that it be posted here. Newyorkbrad 17:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You may post the following on your Evidence page.

"Statement of BryanFromPalatine"

I do not want anything to do with Wikipedia.

Years ago, I was active as part of the legal team for Free Republic. I helped them track down and block some cyber vandals who were disrupting the site's operation. I helped them reduce a damages judgment against them in the Los Angeles Times lawsuit, from more than $1 million to $10,000. Since it was a fairly small outfit at the time, this prevented them from going under.

The lunatic left-wing fringe had hoped that this damages judgment would destroy Free Republic. When the news of the settlement was released they became positively furious. Brian Buckley, the lawyer I had worked with in California, had an unlisted phone number and was therefore spared from their retaliation. Mine, however, was a published phone number which provided my home address as well.

My wife and I received death threats by phone (at all hours of the night) and in the mail. My house and car were vandalized. This was my home, where my children were sleeping. There is no doubt, due to the contents of the mailings and phone calls and the graffiti attending the vandalism, that it was done by left-wing lunatics infuriated by their failure to destroy Free Republic.

I abandoned the career I'd built for 23 years, and moved my family to Palatine. The harassment ended. For years, we enjoyed peace and prosperity. I foolishly thought it was all over, and incorporated the words "Palatine" and "Bryan" in a new Wikipedia account.

I got into a fight with BenBurch and FAAFA over their libelous edits to Free Republic. BenBurch posted a particularly nasty remark, and my brother-in-law and father-in-law both saw it and opened Wikipedia accounts. The rest has already been covered by Dino. DP1976 is one of Dino's co-workers. ClemsonTiger is probably a sockpuppet of DP1976. JohnnyCochran is probably a sockpuppet of 12ptHelvetica, my brother-in-law.

Since your administrator, Prodego, had been e-mailed my full name because I thought I could trust him, and because he deliberately posted my full name on an open Talk page so that a couple of the lunatic left-wing fringe dwellers could see it, the harassment has been renewed with a vengeance. They seemed as though they were making up for lost time. So I hope you'll understand if I just take a pass on arbitration.

I would appreciate it if you would just leave my account with its community ban. I may seek to open a new account in about a year if the Arbitration Committee does not object, and it will not include any information that can be used to identify me and renew all this harassment. But right now, I don't want anything to do with you people.

Dino's posts are accurate. Those seeking argument are free to look here. The links to BenBurch's Talk page archives no longer work, because he realized that they were self-incriminating.

Arbitrators, do whatever you want to do.

[edit] Evidence presented by American Politics Journal

Bear with me; I'm just getting started with this Wikipedia thing on the intertubes...

Let's look at Hinnen's original claim:

::The article at AmericanPolitics.com that was allegedly written by TJ Walker does not exist.

FALSE -- as anyone familiar with the ins and outs of archive.org can tell you.

....It's a blank page.

FALSE -- does the word "metadata" mean anything?

I believe that Wikipedia has been the victims of a carefully crafted hoax.

TRUE -- ... if you're talking about the Amazing Hinnen Sockpuppet Troupe! (I believe both Bryan and Dino to be one person -- full name Bryan Dean Hinnen -- in what appears to be an amazingly deft sockpuppetry softshoe.) I swear, if Bry... er, Dean sold tickets, it would be bigger boffo box office than Avenue Q.

I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not."

Mind you, I am not privy to any conversation that Walker might (or might not) have had with whichever Hinnen supposedly called, but APJ first ran the article over seven years ago after we approached the author and sought his permission in an exchange of e-mails. He certainly seemed thoroughly versed in the facts behind the article at the time. If Hinnen, who claims in an e-mail to APJ to be a member of Free Republic's "legal team," had definitive evidence that Walker "didn't write" the article outside of his ridiculous and uncorroborated claim which does not square with any semblance of reality, he would have presented it. Surely, as a member of the greater legal community -- whether an officer of the court or not -- he understands the ramifications of making a FALSE assertion in a public forum.

He contacted AmericanPolitics.com and asked them to remove the article from their website. They complied immediately.

Unfortunately, that last point has nothing to do with the previous point -- as the timeline of our contacts with Walker can demonstrate. Get something backwards, Bry... er, Dino?

Hinnen's claims about the original Walker article don't square with the facts. They are, in fact, false.

He could have saved himself -- and the Wikipedia community -- an enormous expenditure of effort, spleen and wasted man-hours -- if he had taken a minute to call us to discuss the situation.

Instead, he has made a fool of himself -- and in the process, defamed APJ.

It is in Hinnen's best interest to simply drop this matter and issue an apology to APJ and Walker. Apj-us-nyc 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

MORE: American Politics Journal's publisher had a conversation on Monday, March 12 with Charles Doerksen, the highly-regarded litigator who is in fact the lawyer of record for Free Republic LLC. He was not aware of "Dean"'s recent e-mails to Wikipedia or APJ. It would be safe to say that Wikipedia can quite comfortably disregard any threats emanating from the e-mail account of one "Dean" Hinnen. something tells me that he might also be interested in the Hinnen sock drawer. -- Apj-us-nyc 19:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by CBDunkerson

Just adding a confirmation link to the American Politics Journal site which verifies that the user claiming above to represent APJ is, in fact, authorized to do so... per the 'Postscript' at the bottom of the page. --CBD 12:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by JzG

This is User:BryanFromPalatine: [158]; precisely the same claim as made by DeanHinnen in this RFAR.

See the profile of user Bryan on FR: [159].

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.
In addition to $1 million in damages, Federal Judge Margaret Morrow (a Clinton appointee -- imagine that) awarded the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post over $1 million in attorney fees from their high-priced Beverly Hills law firm. It would have bankrupted Free Republic. JimRob could have run Freepathons for ten years and never would have paid that off.
Brian and I researched the law and drafted aggressive and thorough appellate briefs, based on the fair use exception to copyright law. The lawyers for the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post were afraid they were going to lose everything, and settled for $10,000 and no attorney fees.

I believe that is the final nail in the coffin of the claim that "Dino" and Bryan (note spelling with a Y, unusual) are separate individuals. Same claim to be members of the legal team, same context for the claims, same vendetta against FAAFA and BenBurch, same combative style, same locus, same IP address, and at least one external source that says Bryan's full name is Bryan Dean Hinnen. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Eschoir

I dispute the following statement:

"whose disruption of the site was so severe that an injunction was entered by a federal district court forbidding disruption of the site"

The record will show Free Republic sued me alleging breach of contract in County Circuit Court in Virginia, asking for $950,000.00 in damages. I removed it to Federal Court over strenuous objection. After three months of litigation they agreed to dismiss any and all possible allegations of wrongdoing or civil liability against me with prejudice in return for an injunction, which I had offered at the start. (I wrote the injunction to reflect in part the language and the mechanisms included in the Permanent Injunction that had been awarded against FR in the LA Times suit, my announcement of which had been the precipitating cause of the enmity of FR's counsel, Mr. Buckley, retribution for which had been the reason for filing the lawsuit in the first place.) The court found no disruption, the court took no evidence. The court endorsed the settlement handed to it that had been reached between the parties and dismissed FR's case, and any other causes of action it had or may have had against me, with prejudice.

If you read Mr. Buckley's self-serving account of the results on the FR site, you may get another impression. The record will show Mr. Buckley's license to practice law has since been revoked. Eschoir 23:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Also worthy of note, and easily sourced, is that Buckley was fired by Free Republic during the appeal of LA Times v. Free Republic and that he was banned from their website. Harder to source is the fact that he subsequently asked me to represent him in a lawsuit against James Robinson. Eschoir 15:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet, if you search Bankruptcy filings, you get a Bryan Dean Hinnen with a different spouse filing for Chapter 7 in 2003. However, this bankruptcy is consonant with the first Bryan's filing in forma pauperis in 1990.

- Eschoir 06:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC) - -

My assumption that XXX was a spouse is wrong, according to this 2000 article by newbie Bryan Hinnen. It does lead one to think Dino is bryan by its usage of the trope "sir" when the author becomes agitated. Eschoir 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by dman727

All Federal bankrupcy, criminal and civil case information is available via PACER (law). This is a public system available to everyone for a small fee per document. Recent cases have full details including images of all documents pertaining to the case. Older cases have docket, plantiff, defendent and summary information.

A quick search of the Federal court system using PACER reveals information which I THINK is relevant: U.S. District Court, United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois (Peoria)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:90-cv-01368-MMM. Plantiff: Bryan Dean Hinnen, Plantiff XXX Hinnen, Plantiff XXX Defendent: United States Department of Justice Defendent: Drug Enforcement Administration Defendent: XXX

Case filed on 12/12/1990, Case Terminated on Terminated: 02/19/1992 Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights Other Case:92-02111

(note XXX is a name which I decline to transcribe on wiki)

There is a plethora of additional information available on this case which I won't revel here (although it is PUBLIC), and its important to point out that the dispute in this case has nothing to do with the dispute at wiki. The relevant point is the identity and location of the individual.

However to me this sets to rest, as least for me, the notion that Bryan Hinnen and Dean Hinnen are seperate people as I find it VERY unlikely that there is a "Bryan Hinnen", "Dean Hinnen", and "Bryan Dean Hinnen" are all seperate people living in the same area. Dman727 20:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Free_Republic_Evidence_4be9.html"