User talk:Proctor spock

WP:3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on HD DVD. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Improper block. Another editor, Locke Cole, removed valuable content from the HD DVD article. I saw his inappropriate removal, created an account, and restored the material. He placed the boilerplate warning message above and proceeded to remove the content again. The consensus on the discussion page for HD DVD is that this content belongs in the article. I have restored the content and no other editor has removed it since. However, Locke Cole requested a checkuser on me. I am not sure why it was granted, but I am not another editor to the HD DVD or similar articles. Locke Cole appears to be gaming the system to prevent other editors who happen to share the same opinion from editing these articles.

Decline reason:

You have not been blocked directly. If you have been autoblocked, we need to know the autoblock ID, the user who is causing your block, and your IP address. — B (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2008 (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.

This is confusing. The block is a result of this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ray_andrew. Alison appears to be causing the block at Locke Cole's request. Proctor spock (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are three ways someone can be blocked. (1) You can be blocked directly. That is the only thing an admin has the ability to check. Your block log is empty, so I know that you have not been blocked directly. (2) You can be autoblocked as a result of sharing the same IP address as another user who has been blocked. This is done by the software and, for your privacy, admins have no way to see this. If you have been autoblocked, your block message will give you an autoblock ID number, the name of the blocking admin, your IP address, and the user who is causing your block. You have to provide this information because we have no way to consider your request without it. (3) Your IP can be blocked directly. Again, in that case, we need to know what your IP is and who the admin is that blocked it, otherwise, we have no way to know how to remove it. Alison has blocked several IP addresses today and if one of those is your's, I'm sorry, but it was being used abusively and cannot be unblocked. --B (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The corresponding IP for this block was not being used abusively. Editor Locke Cole confused me with another editor and had Alison perform a checkuser. I do not know how, but the result she got is inaccurate. I am not Ray andrew. Proctor spock (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you use Special:Emailuser/Alison, you can discuss it with her and explain any results that she may have found on your IP, but there is nothing that anyone else can do. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help. --B (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no comment as to what this editor has been doing regarding the checkuser case, the IP that this editor has been using has been hardblocked for other reasons and should not be unblocked. Really sorry about that - Alison ^❤ 22:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that I understand you, you are saying the blocking of the IP underlying my account was not a result of the checkuser case? Proctor spock (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was the result of the checkuser case. I'm not at liberty to reveal it, though, due to the privacy policy - Alison ^❤ 00:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions to think about:

(1) Why would a checkuser case for two named editors result in a block of an IP address but neither editor?

(2) How did the evidence provided at the request for checkuser rise to the level of investigating a named editor's IP address? How does this mesh with "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases."?

Proctor spock (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

I have not personally attacked you. Again: the checkuser request resulted in a "likely" response that you and Ray are the same editor. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming to visit me on my user page. In response to your hurt feelings, I'll tell you what I really think. I really think that you (Ray Andrew, aka Proctor Spock, aka, some number of other sock puppets) are a PR guy for HD DVD. I figure that with so much money at stake, both Blu-Ray and HD DVD must have people editing wikipedia, and you definitely defend the latter format like it's your full time job. You have no other wikipedia edits whatsoever. I guess I should be jealous, since you get paid to edit wikipedia, while I do it for free! Pisomojado (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ray andrew for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

Do not wikistalk me, doing so is considered harassment and can lead to a block. I am specifically referring to this edit: [1]. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did you find that edit of mine? Proctor spock (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have his page watchlisted since he gave me rollback privileges. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite a delay you are experiencing. My apologies. Proctor spock (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a delay. I saw it, and was prepared to let it go, but I'm seeing a pattern of poor behavior from both you and Ray andrew, and I felt the need to warn you in advance that this kind of behavior is also unacceptable. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it. Proctor spock (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the chart thing

You posted "I object to using stripes of blue for Warner Bros since they should not be colored blue until the day they become Blu-ray exclusive, on June 1st, 2008". Although I have been fighting for this chart, I have to say that the colour blue has every right to be in the warner slice as the colour red does because Warner have been releasing on BOTH formats before the CES announcement. Because Warner have always been releasing on both formats it would makes sense that the chart be both red and blue, or a different colour altogether. I just wanted to say that on your talk page instead of pointing it out on the articles talk page. JayKeaton (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. I should have been more clear. I meant blue not offset by equal (or nearly equal) amounts of red. So an even purple halfway between blue and red fulfills the requirement. Or both red and blue stripes, covering (near) equal areas of the slice. But purple and blue stripes like in the article's current chart do not. Thanks for the catch. Proctor spock (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hope you haven't been discouraged by the rude welcome you got over the last few weeks. I hope you continue to contribute. --Ray andrew (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]