FaheyUSMC

September 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to The Dating Guy, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. LK (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• You have yet to actually defend your position using proper debating tactics. Instead, you and Elizium23 have used the exact same thing - a broad generalization of the Wikipedia "rules and regulations" to support your claims. However, I have gone into detail multiple times to show you how Wikipedia actually suggests that YOU are both wrong. Until you do so, DO NOT remove the area that has been added as controversy.

Furthermore, the article does not slander, defame, or libel any person. The article makes no mention of certainty in the claims, and only states, "Here is a claim made, it's a broiling controversy." By your logic, unless it is picked up by a major news source, there is no verifiable way to actually ascertain the legitimacy of the claims. And until one party brings the other to court (which if Teletoon were not guilty, they would have done already, or served a cease and desist, which they have not), it is not likely to see print in a major source.

I will be making sure the controversy is, once again, added. You have no business taking it down until you can justify, with specifics, where there are violations. if this is an attempt to get me to breach the "three-revert" rule, it's not going to work. FaheyUSMC (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Fahey

If you want to add that "controversy" section in, you'll need a reliable source. The forum doesn't cut it. At least three people have told you this. Find a reliable source and there won't be a problem. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 17:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to The Dating Guy. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 03:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• When you can provide a sufficient defense beyond the usual "Go read the rules", then I will take your opinion into account. However, to date your only responses have been, "No, now go read the rules here and here" without providing actual, specific details as to where you think there have been violations.

I, personally, have gone through the rules several times and asked myself several questions before 1) writing the section; 2) every rebuttal as to why it should be included, and; 3) provided specific examples as to how Wikipedia's own rules have completely backed up my claims. As I said, you and the other two taking your side have not provided relevant, specific points as to where violations have occurred. FaheyUSMC (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

sockpuppet accusation

You may wish to look at the pages of user KSEVWatch. You are accused of using him as a sockpuppet. I am willing to suspect that an honest checkuser would find you not even in the same city given that the username is related to a US radio station (KSEV) and the user's first edits were to a politician who owns said radio station, indicating that KSEVWatch is likely a resident of that city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.243.192.222 (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Where is the evidence? Simply saying, "This person took his side, it's clear he's a sock puppet" would not be enough to move a jury even if this case were not laughed out of the courtroom. FaheyUSMC (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The evidence is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FaheyUSMC, as you are aware. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

As has been said, a TRACEROUTE or IP trqace, if Wikipedia actually does have such capabilities, would show that I am not in Texas or Atlanta, Georgia. I hail from the great state of Taxachusetts...Ipswich, Massachusetts, rather. Actually, I'm from Boston. Then moved to Quincy. Then Falmouth. Then Abington. Then Whitman. Then Plymouth. Then Parris Island, South Carolina. Then Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Then Camp Hansen, Okinawa, Japan. Then back to Camp Lejeune. And now I'm in Ipswich, Massachusetts.

My point is, if a trace had been done in the proper fashion, it would be clear that the IPs are not the same. Not even in the same geographical location of the United States! FaheyUSMC (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I do have that ability, and I've just taken a look. A relation between this account and User:KSEVWatch is likely (I concur with MuZemike's findings), and that combined with behavioral evidence is sufficient for a block. IP Geolocation does confirm what you say above, but it does not rule out sockpuppetry in this particular case. In any event, geolocation is highly unreliable and we often depend on other information when checking for sockpuppets. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

"I do have that ability, and I've just taken a look. A relation between this account and User:KSEVWatch is likely (I concur with MuZemike's findings), and that combined with behavioral evidence is sufficient for a block. IP Geolocation does confirm what you say above, but it does not rule out sockpuppetry in this particular case. In any event, geolocation is highly unreliable and we often depend on other information when checking for sockpuppets"

• The TRACEROUTE confirms I am not in the same geolocation as the other locations. Therefore, trying to tie me to those accounts is not only a futile gesture by your own admission.
• How can you declare them my sockpuppets? Elizium has pointed out there are significant differences between their actions, as well as mine. They have been insulting and demaning. I have made every valid point while maintaining composure, as well as cordiality. Furthermore, on the "sockpuppet investigation" page itself, Elizium23 has comes out and said he doesn't believe I am related to these two in any way, shape, or form, and that he believes them to be simply puppets from LICD's forums proper.
• You cite "behavioral similarities", yet looking at what similarities there are, that's not a valid point. Both KSEV and the unsourced IP have been disruptive and insulting towards Elizium. I have gone so far as to warn him that there may be people coming from Sohmer's own forums that could be disruptive, and if I saw them pop up I would remove those posts immediately in the interest of further debate. That argument is null on it's face. FaheyUSMC (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, your talk page access is revoked by Drmies (talk · contribs). Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Talk page access

Given your disrespect for various of our policies I have revoked your talk page access. If you have anything to say, you can email an administrator. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)