User talk:FuriousJorge

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Sean Hannity. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You are not allowed to say so and so has bias A or the like. Stop. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 04:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring at Sean Hannity. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Jayron32 12:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning above about edit warring: dated 07:01, August 27, 2009
Latest attempt to insert contested material, substantively the same as the material you were warned about above, dated 05:53, August 28, 2009
As a matter of point, being referenced is not carte blanche to edit war, and WP:BLP should be followed closely. --Jayron32 12:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended

You have been blocked for 1 week for violating the sockpuppetry guidelines. NW (Talk) 01:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is complete BS. Based on what? Geographic location? I just outside manhattan. Half the country lives here. What is my recourse?

Half the country lives just outside Manhattan? Wow! I'm sure the US Census Bureau is going to be in for quite the shock next year when they do the 2010 census. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that sockpuppet investigation you commented on? It's been confirmed that you're that IP. Checkusers can look directly at the IP addresses that users use, and they saw yours.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 04:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denial will not help your case.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 04:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Your slandar of me may be paying dividends, but that was NOT my IP (as you suggest), not did I recruit anyone (as the administration suggests). Enjoy this, because the criticism is going in there.FuriousJorge (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand. You were

Confirmed by a checkuser to be that IP, period. Further denial shall not help your case.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 04:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually YOU don't understand. Check the results of your Investigation: "I highly doubt that coincidence brought WizardSleeve/IP to the discussion out of thin air. It's either a blatant attempt at meatpuppetry, or the two registered accounts are in fact the same person. Hence, we could use CU to look for any technical evidence between the two registered accounts. MuZemike 23:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)" No mention of same IP. And I know it is not the same IP because the only other person who uses this connection is my girlfriend and she simply would not and did not post here.

Show me where it says IPs matched. It does not because it cannot. FuriousJorge (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also it says: Unlikely but same geographic region/ISP; possible meat puppet. Brandon (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC).

In other words, that guys said is was unlikely, so how did I get blocked?

So you are wrong. Acknowledge it or just please refrain from continueing your slander.FuriousJorge (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, again I live just outside of NYC. Cablevision is the nations LARGEST ISP. Somebody screwed up here bad. 04:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I might have let that one go, except that you had to put "largest ISP" in all caps. No, Cablevision isn't the nations largest ISP. They have 2.5% of the market. SBC, with 15.4% is the biggest, followed by Comcast at 15.3%. Cablevisions 2.4 million subscribers doesn't even come close to the 14.8 million and 14.7 million subscribers the other 2 have respectively. Cablevision is the NINTH largest ISP in the US. [1]. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to correct myself: Cablevision is the largest ISP in the most densly populated area of the country where I live.FuriousJorge (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not wrong. The CU posted his findings at the bottom. It clearly states FuriousJorge confirmed as 67.84.209.35. It may not currently say your name in front of

Confirmed, but that is because a bot messed up.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 04:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You already got what you wanted, why must you continue to slander? Don't you think if my ip matched it WOULD SAY it there. Obviously it would. The other guys as much as said it was UNLIKELY and based only on REGION/ISP. What a farce.

You are way out of your element. If they know both regions and ISPs they ALREADY KNOW my IP. You should educate yourself to avoid being proved wrong in the future. FuriousJorge (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. It says FuriousJorge confirmed as 67.84.209.35. It says that Wizard is unrelated to the to you and the IP, not that the IP is unrelated to you.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my IP. You are wrong. I'll explain it to you again: That is the IP of the person who is my alleged puppet. That IS NOT my IP. That's why they use the word "meatpuppet" not "sockpuppet". They are saying I recruited someone (in my sleep apparently). That's why in the opinion of one of the people involved in the investigation:

"WizardSleeve (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • spi block • block log • checkuser) as 67.84.209.35 (talk • contribs • abuse log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip). Unlikely to FuriousJorge but same geographic region/ISP; possible meat puppet. Brandon (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)"

I'm sure you already know this, though. You just insist on misrepresenting. Once again, if they know my ISP and Region they know my IP. That is why they said "Unlikely FuriousJorge", but possible "metpuppet". If it was the same IP he would have said "Likely FuriousJorge". How they claim this for the most densly populated area in the hemisphere is what I don't understand. Everyone around here has the same ISP and Region.FuriousJorge (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the time, I didn't know that. I am wrong, I admit this, but, if you just take the time to read and check, you will see I was simply following the sockpuppet report. It did not say what it does now, read the diff and find out.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. FuriousJorge (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm being accused of meat puppeting, but I'm not sure how to prove a negative (i.e. that I did not recruit this person and don't know who he/she is). Furthermore, you will see that this person posted at a time when I have never posted on Wikipedia. The reason is simple: I work nights and I sleep untill about noon. I have hundreds of posts, and I'd be surprised if EVEN ONE came within 2 hours of when he posted. That means you need to either believe I recruited this person in my sleep, or that I am such an experienced wikipedia abuser that I knew to tell the person to only post at a time I've never posted before. Finally, I live in the most densly populated area in this hemisphere. Everyone in a 50 mile radius has the same ISP and Geographic Location. That 50 mile radius probably contains 10% of the country's population. There is no evidence here, especially considering how many other suspects there could be. Just check the discussion log and x-reference the IPs of people who's criticisms have been disallowed by Niteshift et al. I'm willing to bet it was one of them. The one thing I'm sure of is that I recruited no one, I always post from the same IP, save for right now when I happen to be on vacation. I know how this looks, and I'm sure 95% of the time you guys are right to ban. I'm just contending that this is the other 5%. It's a mistake, and if it took just a little digging to make it, it will take just a little more digging to correct it. Edit: One last thing: even though I may look like a single-purpose account, the truth is that election '08 was the first time I needed an account in order to edit Sean Hannity, the first and only "controversial-and-needs-account" page I've ever edited. I can demonstrate many infrequent and anonymous edits in sports and science topics throughout the last 8 years that are mine upon request.

Decline reason:

Possibility A: Just when you needed one more voice on your side, a brand new user, who has never used Wikipedia before and has nothing to do with you, but who coincidentally happens to live nearby, joins Wikipedia. The very first place she goes is Talk:Sean Hannity, even though it's unusual for a new user to even notice the talk pages immediately, and jumps right into the conversation, saying just what you were hoping someone would. Possibility B: Needing one more voice on your side, you asked a friend of yours to join the conversation and take your side. Possibility C: While you were somewhere other than your usual editing place- at the library, at a friend's house, using your laptop in a McDonalds- you created a second account to agree with you. Possibility A seems very, very improbable. Possibility B is meatpuppetry, and a reason to block. Possibility C is sockpuppetry, and a reason to block. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Fair enough, I'll do some investigation and decide if I can find any evidence to file a further appeal.FuriousJorge (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I lost motivation to debate this, but I wanted to add "Possibility D': This person was one of the users who have had their criticisms of Mr. Hannity censored from the page, and saw an opportunity to chime in, much to my detriment. The truth is, I did no further investigation. It takes too long to go through the history and all those diffs. I did notice one additional piece of evidence:

This person used the word 'Vandalism' to describe the edits to the page which removed all negative content. Had I thought of that before this user appeared, you can bet I would have been using the same word. I do now use that word to describe what has happened to the page, but until that person used it it had not occurred to me to do so. This, combined with the fact that I have never posted at that time because I am sound asleep, constitutes my only defense. Its the best I can do to prove a negative.FuriousJorge (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Wow, dude, one of the same people who accused you is now accusing me! A shame that they would block you without any evidence. Maybe I'm headed in the same direction! And all for trying to clean up the much-vandalized Sean Hannity article.Stargnoc (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I didn't make the SPI complaint. I just commented on it. Daedalus969 initiated the investigation. So I didn't actually "accuse" him. But I doubt facts will change your rhetoric. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sentiment, but my advice to you would be to let it go. See the section below. FuriousJorge (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section for debating the merits of this blockage

3RR

Im not sure if you caught this, but aside from yourself, i think, Soxwon also violated the 3RR rule on August 27th, did you report it? If not, i don't think you can still report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, but i could be wrong. If not familiarize yourself with the 3RR rule, and you can avoid making the same mistake again in the future, and you can report violations of it at the Administrators' noticeboard in the link above. -- Hroþberht (gespraec) 06:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the sentiment, but I think I need to learn to chose my battles and go back to editing in only sports and science related articles. Besides, wouldn't that just make me look bitter? In addition, I've just discovered another curious deletion of a section of mine in the talk page, and I've already reverted that. If I start 'investigating' people I'm not gonna be able to resist the urge to defend myself from the torrent that will surely follow.

Besides, while you and I both see that there is something wrong with censorship/vandalism in this article, I'm totally compromised by that 'investigation' above. I don't see how anything I contribute could help my cause at this point (by the way, I did not recruit anyone to post on my behalf, nor did I do it in my sleep. see aboce.).

Again, I appreciate it, but my advice to you would be to let it go. The article's is hopelesly controlled by a few individuals who completely dictate the message. Just look at how quickly negative content gets delted wholesale, and how quickly after that the same editors are ganging up on the contributor. We're talking minutes, not days.

Wait until it is an election season, or the next time Hannity does something outrageous. Criticism cannot simply be added to this article, it takes a hannity screw up and a force of nature to get it in. Even then it just gets removed in a few weeks or months and the cycle starts again.

Hopefully wikipedia policy will address this down the road.

Cheers FuriousJorge (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to burst your conspiracy theory bubble, but it wasn't removed, it was archived, by a bot, on October 4. [2]. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- You are absolutely correct. Then someone restored it. Then someone removed only the section where I point out the vandal (now blocked) who attacked this page. Please check the history. Then I resotred that section, only to log on today and see that even the talk page is censored... it has been removed again.... such a shame. FuriousJorge (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration notification: Niteshift36 incivility and article ownership

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Niteshift36 incivility and article ownership and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,Stargnoc (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

You have been accused of Sockpuppetry, please see [3]. Soxwon (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]