User talk:ChrisP2K5/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

for archived discussions, check this place

Contents 1 That Hadayejr guy 2 Another idea 3 ANI report started 4 May 2008 5 FYI... 6 Your argument with Qst

That Hadayejr guy

WP:AIV is only for currently active IPs doing simple vandalism. You probably need to do a report at WP:SSP which is the proper location to report sockpuppet abuse. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a list here if you want to add any socks you've found. I mainly made it because sock case or checkuser case lists can close.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 20:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Another idea

Since you seem to have all of the Hdayejr IPs catalogued, you may want to open an Abuse Report. People who work at that noticeboard are good at managing range blocks and open proxies and that stuff, which can be effective at stopping the sort of stuff you are running into. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI report started

If you could go to WP:ANI and perhaps list the IP addresses that have been harassing you, someone may be able to work out a range block that will shut this down. Thanks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Challengers (game show). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Jaysweet (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I'm not saying the IP's actions have been all that appropriate either. However, I am concerned about the statement you are adding as it appears to me to be unsourced speculation. I would err against including it, unless you have a source. I have also warned the IP about inappropriately referring to your edits as "vandalism". --Jaysweet (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been informed the IP may be a sock. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what is going on here. I apologize in advance if I've got this all wrong :D --Jaysweet (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For your information I was rewording the previous information given. Second of all, the offending IP is a cyberstalker who's taken a particular interest in me, and IS a sock of a banned user evading his blocks. Notice that he is the only one who is reverting the edits- no one else has saw fit to do so. I'll accept your apology and thank you never to assume my motives again. Thank you. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I never made any assumptions about your motives. I saw that four times in 24 hours, you re-added an unsourced statement that says "speculation abounds that..." That is something that sets off alarm bells for me regardless of motive. That sort of thing is usually done in good faith, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate. (If you notice, even before I was informed that the IP was a sock, I told him that your edit was clearly made in good faith, so not to call it vandalism)

I still don't particularly care for the parenthetical unsourced speculation, but having seen some of Hdayejr's sock's other edits, I really don't want to get in the middle of this mess either. I have placed an "unreferenced" tag on the article, and I will leave it at that. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Then you shouldn't have made the warning. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you figure??? There is no exemption to WP:3RR for acting in good faith. The main exemptions to 3RR are for WP:BLP issues, copyvios, and obvious vandalism. This does not fit any of those categories (the fact that the reverts were made by an accused sock does not make it obvious vandalism).

If the IP is confirmed to be a banned user, you might have had a case there, but #1, the IP is not yet confirmed, only accused, and #2 you need to put that in the edit summary so people understand why you are reverting an apparent good faith edit. And in any case, Hdayejr is blocked indefinitely, but is not banned. There is a difference. Please see WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN.

I believe my 3RR warning was entirely appropriate. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Then that means you suborn and support cyberstalking. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it means that the rules still apply to you regardless of what other people are doing.

I really don't understand your confrontational attitude. You are the one who is assuming all kinds of bad things about my motives. You did revert more than three times in 24 hours, I did not find the edit in question to fall into any of the exemptions to the WP:3RR rule, so I issued a warning. That is entirely appropriate.

Please try harder to assume good faith. I issued the warning in good faith, and given the evidence that was provided, the warning was entirely justifiable. The fact that another user is wikistalking you is irrelevant to the warning in question. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's COMPLETELY relevant, as it's BECAUSE of the wikistalking that the page kept being reverted. The warning WAS NOT provided in good faith, I'm sorry. The user was STALKING ME- what about that don't you understand? You're basically giving this guy free reign to revert any edit I make, and telling me that because of 3RR, I can't do anything about it. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see it that way. I have explained my actions to the best degree I know how, and you still refuse to understand. I guess you and this guy must really have some bad blood between you. In any case, I hope it can all be resolved satisfactorily. Best of luck. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How can I understand when you just don't get it? You saw a 3-edit deal, instantly assumed it was a violation of 3RR, and failed to consider the situation as it stood. That's not right. I was NOT acting in bad faith in any way- I'm defending myself and my good name from a known cyberstalker, and you just want to pat his head, rub his belly, and aid and abet him. Please, stop me if I'm wrong.--ChrisP2K5 (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to argue about it anymore, except to reiterate that I never once accused you of bad faith.

Regardless of whether or not I acted appropriately, though, might I suggest that if you need to revert further edits from Hdayejr, that you put in the edit summary "Undoing edit by sock of banned user Hdayejr" or something to that effect, rather than stuff like "go to hell". heh... I understand your frustration, especially seeing as how persistent Hdayejr is with the socks! However, if you are sure to keep your edit summaries civil and are always careful to say "undoing edit by sock of banned user", this type of misunderstanding will be much less likely to occur in the future.

Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! And really, I sincerely hope this Hdayejr character leaves you alone. Really. Good luck! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you DID say on the incident page that you thought I was acting in bad faith...

And the suggestion you make is noted...most of the time I do do that. The reason why I put the "go to hell" thing in there was because of his response to my last edit. And believe me, persistency is this guy's strong point. He does have problems with the Internet in general- threatening lawsuits against the Wiki, violating Godwin's law on a regular basis when he doesn't get his way, stalking users (TPIRFanSteve, for one), and just overall being a giant boil on the ass of the Internet. I hope he does leave me alone, but hope only gets you so far. We'll see what happens. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And for what I said on the incident page, I do apologize for that. I went back and changed it to "acting out of mutual loathing", which I do think is at least partly true, heh, but I also understand now why it might be pretty easy to loathe this guy. hahaha... It amazes me sometimes that Wikipedia hasn't collapsed under the weight of persistent IP socks like this. Hdayejr appears to be literally unblockable because he can hit such a range of different IPs. And the effectiveness of WP:RBI has its limits, especially when you start having to play whack-a-mole with the blocks.

I wonder if there is any possibility of tracking down his ISP? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I'm amazed myself, to tell you the truth, considering how many there are. I guess if someone wants to vandalize a website bad enough and not want to be caught, well, IPs are the easiest way to do so. As for tracking down his IP, I don't know how much good it would do. I do know he has an email account through Yahoo!, and he's gone ahead and registered an email account similar to my confirmed email here (I'm not going to display it for security concerns) as well as for most other people who he's found in his crosshairs over the years.

You know, now that I've been thinking about it, is there any way I can be nominated for adminship? I've contributed an awful lot to this encyclopedia in the 2+ years I've been a part, and while I may have had some problems with users in the past (admittedly), I don't want to see the Wiki hurt anymore. I believe that I can be a big help to the Wiki if I'm able to become an admin- it'd be a big help to the Hdayejr situation, that's for sure. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You could try it. I know the criteria are pretty strict these days. Best of luck if you try for it! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In the nicest possible way, you need a lot more time. You fail to understand Wikipedia's basic policies, such as not adding trivia, civility and politeness to fellow users. Not to mention the ignorance of WP:EDITWAR. Qst (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Coming from a man who doesn't understand the WP:OWN, that means nothing. And when other users aren't civil to me, I'm not civil to them, especially when they don't assume good faith in my edits. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, when you come across the same users who are refusing to listen and have a confrontational attitude with little respect, its kinda hard to be civil; nonetheless, I think I have too you. I seriously, seriously do not think that you consider adminship, as it will just get you upset. Qst (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so. I may not have the time for it that I might need to be able to do it right. At the same time, though, I don't appreciate condescension. Let's just let this sleeping dog lie. Seriously. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI...

Check back at the ANI report. The CU to relate Dayewalker with Hdayejr came back negative...? I didn't want to say so on Dayewalker's talk page, because something is definitely fishy with Dayewalker. But he may, in fact, not be a sock of Hdayejr. Perhaps a sock of someone who had a prior run-in with Hdayejr?? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

May I ask who the checkuser came across? Because I don't buy it. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Check the ANI thread. I am not an admin and certainly don't have CU power, so I don't know. Thatcher ran the CU. He/she says it is definitely not a Hdayejr sock, but suspects it's a sock of another as-yet-unknown unknown user.

You were definitely right about the 99.* IP, though, that's our old buddy Harvey fer sher. ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, basically any IP that reverts the accusations thrown his way is 95% likely to be him- I mean, who else would do something like that? As for the ANI thread, I said that I don't buy Thatcher's findings because he's done things like this before on other Internet media. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Your argument with Qst

The basic problem is that you are adding a claim as to what that episode parodies. The parody may or may not relate to the incident you cite; but the conclusion as you keep restoring it is original research and must go. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (a guy who's been vandalized by Hdayejr a time or two himself)

Mike, with all due respect, if what I posted AND CITED is original research, then so is most other cited info on this website. The fact that he doesn't want it there has nothing to do with the information's credibility and everything to do with his continual violations of WP:OWN and his apparent hard-on for any edit I make. If he's so concerned with my edit then he needs to rid the page of the entire section. (And just a little note on the Harvey side of things...it would appear we- me and a bunch of the admins- scared him off for now. Hopefully that's permanent). --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the section is a reference, and the apparent "citation" what you added was merely a link to a video, not a citation. Please see Wikipedia:Trivia and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, they may be able to help you, as clearly, nothing else can. Qst (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was a link to a video. And I noted where the piece in question is. Therefore, it is a reliable source. Your reversion was a violation of WP:OWN. Understand now? And just so you know, I'm not playing around with you. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the information you included was original research. Since the video in question is a primary source, it cannot be used to verify an interpretation of that source. Simply because "a" exists and "b" exists does NOT mean that "a caused b" unless you have an outside source that SAYS that "a caused b". See WP:SYN. Also, please do not make personal attacks like you did above. That is unbecoming, and against the rules. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not playing around with you, Chris, but I've had negative dealings with you before over the same stuff. We both have better things to do in our lives. Qst (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

So basically, Jayron, what you're telling me is that if I post a video of something happening as physical evidence of said something occurring, then it's original research and cannot stand even if it's the only piece of evidence that can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that what was said is true, right? The information I cited is proof of what I was saying, although I will admit there was a roundabout way of getting to it. I cited where the information could be found, and all Qst or anyone needed to do was to look at it to see that it's correct. Qst's revert was not in good faith and proved that he did not look at said information- had he done so, he would've seen that the information was reliable and cited properly. And I did not make any personal attacks here- please show me where I did. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the episode many a time, I didn't need to watch the video. Qst (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

So in other words, you reverted without checking the source. All I needed to know. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you're reading what you want to read. This is over, you are wrong in this discussion. Qst (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay...how am I supposed to read that? "I didn't need to watch the video." Translation: "I couldn't be bothered to cross-reference the source." I'm not wrong here. Assume good faith. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

For Christ Sake. A video is not a reliable source, its the episode its self, it wouldn't be usable in the {{Cite web}} template. You need reliable prose (not TV.com or IMDb). Your wrong, accept it, admit it, move on. Qst (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not wrong. Sorry. You're not getting that from me when it isn't the case. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what I am telling you is that the video can only be used to say that "a happened" not to say that "a is important and needs to be reported" or that "a caused other event b to happen". In order for "a" to be worth reporting, or to prove the connection between "a" (the original video) and "b" (the supposed parody) you need more than the two videos... you need a reliable source that says that b parodies a. Simply that they both exist is not enough. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, in this case, a parodies b (a being the clip in question and b being the actual incident). It's pretty clear to me what the portion of the video is referencing- Ashlee Simpson and her whole lip synching incident. It's citable proof and it's as obvious a conclusion to draw as there could be. If the name "Ashlee Simpson" wasn't used in the clip, you might be able to make an argument, but since it is to me there's no other way to assume what the intent is. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop, and think. Have I ever seen any good articles or featured articles with links to videos as referenced, and aren't formatted correctly. The answer, no, and if you find one, please, by all means link it to me so I can remove it. Qst (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not gonna do that. Look, you were in the wrong here, and the condescending attitude I'm continuing to get from you is starting to offend me just a little bit. I am not going to say anything more on this matter and will thank you to do the same. The matter's closed, as is the discussion. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought as much. Precisely. Qst (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)