CAN SOMEONE OTHER THAN WILL PLEASE HELP ME

  • 3
  • Problem
  • Updated 2 months ago
Merged

This conversation has been merged. Please reference the main conversation: HELP: Incorrect information on my profile

I am beyond frustrated with Will's lack of willingness to engage with me or act in good faith, and I ask someone other than Will please try to work with me here. It's like I'm living in a world where the rules of logic no longer apply, and at this point I believe Will is purposefully trying to keep fake information on my IMDb profile out of some sort of spite.

This is in reference to VH1 Big in '05 production assistant credit, a fake credit that has been on my profile for years, and that I am trying to get removed. Please see my other posts for more background. I was told it would be removed if I could find the credits of the show and prove I am not in them, which I somehow managed to do for this 14 year old awards show, and Will still refuses to acknowledge the credit is fake, and refuses to answer why he still believes it is real.

From how I see it, IMDb either has [one submission or a collection of submissions or a collection of other "evidence"] we can collectively refer to as BOX A. The contents of BOX A lead IMDb to CONCLUSION B, that I was a credited production assistant on this production I did not work on. No matter what made up the contents of BOX A, it is an inarguable fact that it lead you to CONCLUSION B, a conclusion you were happy to accept for over a decade without question.

I came along and questioned CONCLUSION B. I was asked to provide evidence that CONCLUSION B was false, which I did. Therefore it is an undeniable fact that whatever evidence makes up BOX A is insufficient, and leads to false conclusions.

IMDb was willing to defend CONCLUSION B when doubt was cast on BOX A. And then I conclusively proved the contents of BOX A to be false. But instead of recognizing CONCLUSION B to be false, Will stuck to the proven-false narrative painted by BOX A in part, even though the entirety of BOX A is now demonstrably undermined.

This is completely and totally devoid of logic. I have the right to know why you are perpetuating this lie in the face of all logic and fact. You say it's because you still believe BOX A to be true, but that clearly is a bad faith argument at this point.

I explained where the credit came from. I even found the old account associated with the computer in my college dorm room from which the credit was originally submitted, and signed into that account to do the update from there. But still, you're choosing to believe an admitted and proven decade-old lie instead of taking this opportunity to correct the record and truly attempt to be the most complete and accurate database on the internet. You are choosing inaccuracy, and refusing to engage in good faith in any attempts to get to the truth.

At this point, no matter what the contents of BOX A are or where they came from, you know them to be tainted. Take the narrator out of it -- if it's a he-said-he-said of me from the past vs me from the future, then you could argue that I too am tainted. Except even with me removed from the equation, the credits still alone prove without a doubt that BOX A is false.

You are refusing to attempt to get the full, factual truth and instead clinging to an arbitrary part of the proven-false contents of BOX A. This is absurd, and the only conclusion one can reach at that point is that Will does not in fact have any interest in the accuracy of IMDb's database, and instead favors his own vindictiveness and pride.
Photo of Stuart

Stuart

  • 25 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
  • COULD NOT BE MORE FRUSTRATED.

Posted 2 months ago

  • 3
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 15371 Posts
  • 17557 Reply Likes
Photo of Stuart

Stuart

  • 25 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
When I originally opened a ticket, I told you

1) The "credited as" you had for me for Speedy Delivery was incorrect

2) The VH1 Big In 05 credit you had for me is incorrect

I have proven all that to be true. Why you still cling to one small part of #2 is beyond me, and no doubt worthy of further explanation.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 15214 Posts
  • 17290 Reply Likes
You are repeating yourself, which will not help your case whatsoever.
Less is more.
Please do not respond.
Wait for staffs reply or closing of this post.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7215 Posts
  • 9379 Reply Likes
That's a good point, Ed. However, the creator of the thread is entitled to a better explanation, in my humble opinion. This lack of transparency almost has IMDb in flames.
Photo of gromit82

gromit82, Champion

  • 7164 Posts
  • 8748 Reply Likes
I think it is fair for Stuart to ask why he continues to be listed as an uncredited production assistant for a show where (a) he claims that he did not do that job, (b) about 40 other people were credited as production assistants, and (c) he was not credited as a production assistant.

If VH1 was willing to give credit to all those other production assistants, shouldn't the lack of a credit for Stuart on this show imply that he wasn't actually a production assistant?
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 15214 Posts
  • 17290 Reply Likes
Hi, all.
I read what Will said. There was something based on the submission history that cased Will to downgrade but not remove the credit.
A reprint.
Will, Official Rep
  • 3546 Posts
  • 4141 Reply Likes
Hi Stuart,

Thank you for providing the end credits, we've now added the (uncredited) attribute to the credit now. However please note that the credit will not be removed in its entirety based on the submission history.

I would suggest that the answer cannot be posted here for reasons we are not privy to, but Will and Stuart are well aware of.

If Stuart wants a clearer answer he may want to use this method, as I believe he will not get that answer here.

https://help.imdb.com/contact

Cheers all
:):)
Ed

P.S.
What if his submission was made by VH1? Not Stuart. IMDb would be reluctant to remove a credit submitted by VH1's Production Staff.
IMDb as we know "Never" reveals who made a submission!
So the answer may never be provided even by the direct contact method.
(Edited)
Photo of Stuart

Stuart

  • 25 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
That contact form is what lead me here. I've been going in circles for weeks at this point, if not months.

I have been completely transparent about what I know to be in the submission history: a joke played by my college roommates 14 years ago, which IMDb accepted as true. I don't remember what "proof" was fabricated, or if I was even in the room when it happened. I just know it was an ongoing thing for us to try to get IMDb profiles created for ourselves, and this one worked. And since I've entered adulthood, I have been trying unsuccessfully to correct the record.

If there's more information to be shared, I am eager to have it shared so that I can debunk it.

I think it's pretty clear though for all the reasons I've pointed out -- and gromit82 -- that this credit is absolutely fake. And if IMDb is serious about trying to be complete and accurate, they would want to get to the bottom of this, not brush it off. Which leads me to believe Will is not acting in good faith, and IMDb is not serious about trying to be accurate with its database.

No matter what's in the submission history, this very debate and my repeated ability to corroborate my story and provide evidence should cause Will to want to dig further, not shut down the conversation and refuse to engage.
Photo of Stuart

Stuart

  • 25 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
Re: Ed's edit. VH1 did not make the submission. The submission came from an account tied to an old college email of mine, which is the account we used on the dorm computer. I located my old password and found it in the submission history.

I know VH1 did not also submit this, because it is not a real credit. So short of some process where IMDb said, "Hey are these real?" and VH1 lazily gave a thumbs up without checking, then no, there's no way VH1 submitted this fake credit also.
Photo of Stuart

Stuart

  • 25 Posts
  • 8 Reply Likes
And again, I can't reiterate this enough: IMDb has their story based on the submission history. Whatever that story is lead them to the conclusion I was a credited production assistant on this show. We know for an absolute fact that is not true. That alone should cast doubt on any other conclusions they've drawn from that same body of evidence.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 15214 Posts
  • 17290 Reply Likes
Once you use the contact method, stay on the direct contact method.
Coming here (Public method) thinking you will get a different answer is faulty thinking.
Asking for another staff member on the idea that it will make a difference is faulty thinking.
Go back to the contact direct method.
Quit the excess rhetoric.
Be brief and concise.
Be logical.
I speak from experience.
I overcame a very large obstacle myself with the staff and was able to reverse a decision.
I was direct, thoughtful, and as brief as I could be.
It does make a difference when you over bloviate.
Try to avoid it.
:):)
Cheers
Ed
By the way it took 3 months to accomplish.
(Edited)

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.