Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DeanHinnen

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] User:DeanHinnen

Suspected sockpuppeteer

DeanHinnen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)

Suspected sockpuppets

Fensteren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

BenBurch 20:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Self-evident sock already blocked by admin User:JzG as a sock of User:BryanFromPalatine. I believe this was misattributed, and the account was really a sock of the putative "brother" of BryanFromPalatine, User:DeanHinnen. Dean says that he is representing to the en-unblock-l that User:Fensteren is not a sock puppet, so I feel it is necessary to get this complaint formally on the record.

Please seen the rationale used for the original block at User_talk:JzG#User:Fensteren.

However, as User:DeanHinnen is representing Fensteren before en-unblock-l I think that block was in error as it should have referenced DeanHinnen and not BryanFromPalatine, his putative "brother".

This case is contentious, and has a long history, mostly involving User:BryanFromPalatine;

Several checkuser requests all to be found here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine

Here are his SSP investigations;

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

The revenge Checkuser his suspected sock filed against me (and which his confirmed sock RE-filed);

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BenBurch

Comments

To the admin performing this check, please be especially careful. The archives at unblock-en-l catalogue the issues related to whether or not DeanHinnen and BryanFromPalantine were sockpuppets, the result being that DeanHinnen was unblocked by consensus. It is also worth noting that DeanHinnen was exceptionally polite during that particular investigation. I believe in this case, it would be to Wikipedia's benefit to be more diligent than usual in the checkuser investigation and to be sure of the conclusion. This should not be taken to be a criticism of standard checkuser investigations, only a call to be extra careful this time around. --Yamla 20:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yamla? I'd really like some insight into what is going on here. We see all these users appear and make the same class of edits, expressing the same concerns, and pushing the same agenda. Under all other circumstances they would absolutely be considered either sock puppets or meat puppets, but somehow DeanHinnen (who has been mega-disruptive and mega-abusive since you unblocked him, including filing a frivolous RfC against me which got thrown out) got himself unblocked in spite of all of the evidence that he was AT LEAST a meat puppet here dancing to the tune played by BryanFromPalatine. He even went so far as to act explicitly as agent for Bryan in that RfC where he made Bryan the co-certifying editor and included text explicitly provided by Bryan. So, what was he able to show you that proved to you that he ought not be blocked? He is using that finding you had at en-unblock-l as a shield against all manner of his bad behaviours. --BenBurch 20:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The unblock-en-l list is public and I strongly urge you and other editors to check out the archives at this location. I believe you have to subscribe in order to access the list. This will be more accurate than me trying to summarise here. --Yamla 21:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

RFCU has already been filed and declined. ": Declined. This battle is not going to be continued in this forum. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)" (Reposted.) Dino 21:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTE - jpgordon did not sign the above or make the above comment on this page. This was an attempt to sway the issue with a confusingly-signed post by Dean. --BenBurch 21:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions