Comments from any sock being operated by an endless parade of obsessive sockpuppets are still unwanted here. More information on this longtime internet menace is available upon request. - Chadbryant 03:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
You had a question about my speculation that Laurel Rose Willson may have faked her own death. I may possibly take that out of there, because it is speculation and as yet I do not have evidence to back it up. It was the first thing I thought of when I saw her death announcement. I am about to write to Cornerstone and ask what they think. -- Bluejay Young 00:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I looked at his contributions and my first instinct was {{ DickWitham}}. Then I saw your post on WP:AN/I and reverted my own edit. I do not have checkuser ability, in fact very few users do (see [1]). You can post at WP:RFCU, or get on the wikipedia IRC channel and find one of them. — Feb. 23, '06 [04:01] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
Okay, how about that new edit? That way, the link the 1960s is there, but without all the apostrophe fighting. Do you think this will work for everyone involved? Thanks. -- LV (Dark Mark) 03:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I've looked at the history of the article, and it seems that the article is still undergoing constructive (but a bit misguided) editing by anonymous editors, so semi-protection isn't appropriate right now. Semi-protection should only be applied when the article is undergoing a significant attack by unregistered or throwaway-account vandals, and that isn't happening right now. That said, if it gets to that point, semi-protection would be appropriate. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 03:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Infoboxes are not supposed to be that big. I've succeeded in greatly shrinking {{ infobox Interstate}} and {{ infobox U.S. Route}}, and this will be no different. Your removal of the exit list could be seen as vandalism. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I've just recieved an email from this user on the subject of your dispute with him, and I'm hoping that you can fill me in on what's happening there. Thanks. Canderson7 ( talk) 01:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I find it to be quite obvious that Chad is the target of an organized effort of harassment and character defamation by a few not-so-anonymous individuals who have long held grudges against him for events that transpired in rec.sport.pro-wrestling years ago, and are doing whatever they can to disrupt the editing process. My wish is that more administrators here will take the time to recognize these patterns of abuse and put a stop to the individuals who are only here to attack a legitimate and productive editor who has done some outstanding work here. Mark Van Pelt 17:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, I've got him. I'm out for the night though - so if someone else comes up, you'll have to find another admin or wait until morning. ( ESkog)( Talk) 05:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. I may not agree with you on many things most of the time, but I still respect your right to not be abused. Is there anything proof-wise to make an outsider think it's TruthCrusader and not DickWitham who was behind that troll? I may be mistaken, but I don't believe TruthCrusader has a history of attacking you with random trolls. That distinction goes to DickWitham.
While I've been pretty involved with it since late January here on Wikipedia, please remember that I am also an outsider in the bigger problem. Some back story to it with proof would be useful, not just to me, but to any admin who may potentially step in on this situation in the future. tv316 22:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Why the hell did you delete what I mentioned about Triple H (post vengeance). That was valuable information, and yet you delted it. I take pride in my work, but it pisses me off when people delete it like that. If you did not like it, all you had to do was edit it, to some extent. I thought about messing with your entry, but then I thought "I am better than that". I am going to re submit this information in Triple H's entry, right now I am letting you off the hook, however, if you delete it again, this will not be the case. Jman5 04:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
If any of that info is accurate or even close, I'll happily delete it from the edit history of your talk page. — Mar. 15, '06 [21:33] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
Ok, I have followed that and yes, that bears out, thanks for the info (you gave on Curps talk page) What is your reason for thinking this is TC's sock? Thanks - KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason you've been adding vandal tags to user pages? If it's simply a prank, stop. It's considered vandalism. I see there's been some conflict amongst a few users here; let me know if these needs mediation. JDoorj a m Talk 03:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to note that all those usernames have been blocked by Curps for vandalism. You sure received some heavy personal attacks there! Petros471 21:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you clarify, is it a proxy or an open proxy. If it were a proxy I would shorten ban, and if it were open I would make it indefinate. Google seems to throw up no treasures for me :S Thanks! Ian13/ talk 22:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Chad, my reverting is based on past consensus, which was to remove this information. The consensus was pretty overwhelming that this does not need to be included, and I've noticed that you've been reverting to include this information for a very long time. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 21:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
He's only made 1 edit in June and 2 in July, so there's nothing recent to look at. I noticed one of your edits which was disputed was marked as vandalism, which is not correct. If you feel there any any edits in future which need to be looked at, leave a note on my talk page with diffs. I'm not prepared to tolerate taunting and personal abuse. It is very destructive. Tyrenius 01:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Whatever it is, when those accounts did something, I've only blocked that account and the IP address. If you'll look carefully, I have never made any comments to your talk page (or anywhere else) regarding sockpuppets. I blocked those accounts, and any comments I made about sockpuppets were only made to those accounts. So you're not actually affected, and you wouldn't know unless you're actually on those accounts. So I wouldn't worry about it. If you want, any future "impersonators" of you, I can name as "Chad or impersonator of Chad" instead of "Chad" if you really want. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 01:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
There, I've replaced tags and comments with "sockpuppet or impersonator". Enjoy, Deathphoenix ʕ 01:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't be discouraged.I've actually been researching this saga since you contributed to Talk:KGET-TV(and the personal attacks posted to that page)and have been wondering User:Dick Witham has sadly gotten undeserved sympathy from one or more admin(i.e., recent unjustified blocks)... Ranma9617 07:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Dooby scoo has been blocked for his completely unacceptable language towards you. I will be looking into other conversations later. You're doing the sensible thing by going down official channels. Please keep your cool and don't be goaded into retaliation. This matter will get sorted out. If you have any trouble report it to me. Tyrenius 14:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. Hungry Hungry Hippos has been permanently blocked as you know. Those Meddling Kids has only done one edit so far, and that is, as far as I can see, an acceptable edit, so I've removed the sockpuppet tag. Please wait till you have evidence, and when you do, tell me, DeathPhoenix or another admin. Putting a tag on doesn't block anyone, so it's not going to achieve what you want anyway. If you make a mistake and it's an innocent editor, then you will be in the position of harrassing someone. Tyrenius 12:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
What's MO? Even so, one non-vandal edit is simply not enough. If it's getting to you, then back off for a bit, and come back later. R&R. Tyrenius 12:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I hadn't seen it. I've blocked [[User:166.102.89.46|}} for the time being. You say it's a dynamic IP? In which case it might not be able to be blocked infefinitely. Tyrenius 13:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That makes sense. Just make sure you stay on the right side of the line in your responses. Tyrenius 14:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked Linden Arden for 24 hours for harassment for this post. Let me know if you receive further difficulties from him or any other user. However, please, as I have said before, refrain from any implication of personal attack yourself, even if provoked. It is not appropriate to leave an edit summary calling someone an "abusive user". Tyrenius 18:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments from any sock being operated by an endless parade of obsessive sockpuppets are still unwanted here. More information on this longtime internet menace is available upon request. - Chadbryant 03:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
You had a question about my speculation that Laurel Rose Willson may have faked her own death. I may possibly take that out of there, because it is speculation and as yet I do not have evidence to back it up. It was the first thing I thought of when I saw her death announcement. I am about to write to Cornerstone and ask what they think. -- Bluejay Young 00:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I looked at his contributions and my first instinct was {{ DickWitham}}. Then I saw your post on WP:AN/I and reverted my own edit. I do not have checkuser ability, in fact very few users do (see [1]). You can post at WP:RFCU, or get on the wikipedia IRC channel and find one of them. — Feb. 23, '06 [04:01] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
Okay, how about that new edit? That way, the link the 1960s is there, but without all the apostrophe fighting. Do you think this will work for everyone involved? Thanks. -- LV (Dark Mark) 03:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I've looked at the history of the article, and it seems that the article is still undergoing constructive (but a bit misguided) editing by anonymous editors, so semi-protection isn't appropriate right now. Semi-protection should only be applied when the article is undergoing a significant attack by unregistered or throwaway-account vandals, and that isn't happening right now. That said, if it gets to that point, semi-protection would be appropriate. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 03:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Infoboxes are not supposed to be that big. I've succeeded in greatly shrinking {{ infobox Interstate}} and {{ infobox U.S. Route}}, and this will be no different. Your removal of the exit list could be seen as vandalism. -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I've just recieved an email from this user on the subject of your dispute with him, and I'm hoping that you can fill me in on what's happening there. Thanks. Canderson7 ( talk) 01:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I find it to be quite obvious that Chad is the target of an organized effort of harassment and character defamation by a few not-so-anonymous individuals who have long held grudges against him for events that transpired in rec.sport.pro-wrestling years ago, and are doing whatever they can to disrupt the editing process. My wish is that more administrators here will take the time to recognize these patterns of abuse and put a stop to the individuals who are only here to attack a legitimate and productive editor who has done some outstanding work here. Mark Van Pelt 17:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, I've got him. I'm out for the night though - so if someone else comes up, you'll have to find another admin or wait until morning. ( ESkog)( Talk) 05:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. I may not agree with you on many things most of the time, but I still respect your right to not be abused. Is there anything proof-wise to make an outsider think it's TruthCrusader and not DickWitham who was behind that troll? I may be mistaken, but I don't believe TruthCrusader has a history of attacking you with random trolls. That distinction goes to DickWitham.
While I've been pretty involved with it since late January here on Wikipedia, please remember that I am also an outsider in the bigger problem. Some back story to it with proof would be useful, not just to me, but to any admin who may potentially step in on this situation in the future. tv316 22:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Why the hell did you delete what I mentioned about Triple H (post vengeance). That was valuable information, and yet you delted it. I take pride in my work, but it pisses me off when people delete it like that. If you did not like it, all you had to do was edit it, to some extent. I thought about messing with your entry, but then I thought "I am better than that". I am going to re submit this information in Triple H's entry, right now I am letting you off the hook, however, if you delete it again, this will not be the case. Jman5 04:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
If any of that info is accurate or even close, I'll happily delete it from the edit history of your talk page. — Mar. 15, '06 [21:33] < freakof nu rx ture | talk>
Ok, I have followed that and yes, that bears out, thanks for the info (you gave on Curps talk page) What is your reason for thinking this is TC's sock? Thanks - KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason you've been adding vandal tags to user pages? If it's simply a prank, stop. It's considered vandalism. I see there's been some conflict amongst a few users here; let me know if these needs mediation. JDoorj a m Talk 03:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to note that all those usernames have been blocked by Curps for vandalism. You sure received some heavy personal attacks there! Petros471 21:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you clarify, is it a proxy or an open proxy. If it were a proxy I would shorten ban, and if it were open I would make it indefinate. Google seems to throw up no treasures for me :S Thanks! Ian13/ talk 22:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Chad, my reverting is based on past consensus, which was to remove this information. The consensus was pretty overwhelming that this does not need to be included, and I've noticed that you've been reverting to include this information for a very long time. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 21:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
He's only made 1 edit in June and 2 in July, so there's nothing recent to look at. I noticed one of your edits which was disputed was marked as vandalism, which is not correct. If you feel there any any edits in future which need to be looked at, leave a note on my talk page with diffs. I'm not prepared to tolerate taunting and personal abuse. It is very destructive. Tyrenius 01:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Whatever it is, when those accounts did something, I've only blocked that account and the IP address. If you'll look carefully, I have never made any comments to your talk page (or anywhere else) regarding sockpuppets. I blocked those accounts, and any comments I made about sockpuppets were only made to those accounts. So you're not actually affected, and you wouldn't know unless you're actually on those accounts. So I wouldn't worry about it. If you want, any future "impersonators" of you, I can name as "Chad or impersonator of Chad" instead of "Chad" if you really want. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 01:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
There, I've replaced tags and comments with "sockpuppet or impersonator". Enjoy, Deathphoenix ʕ 01:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't be discouraged.I've actually been researching this saga since you contributed to Talk:KGET-TV(and the personal attacks posted to that page)and have been wondering User:Dick Witham has sadly gotten undeserved sympathy from one or more admin(i.e., recent unjustified blocks)... Ranma9617 07:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Dooby scoo has been blocked for his completely unacceptable language towards you. I will be looking into other conversations later. You're doing the sensible thing by going down official channels. Please keep your cool and don't be goaded into retaliation. This matter will get sorted out. If you have any trouble report it to me. Tyrenius 14:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. Hungry Hungry Hippos has been permanently blocked as you know. Those Meddling Kids has only done one edit so far, and that is, as far as I can see, an acceptable edit, so I've removed the sockpuppet tag. Please wait till you have evidence, and when you do, tell me, DeathPhoenix or another admin. Putting a tag on doesn't block anyone, so it's not going to achieve what you want anyway. If you make a mistake and it's an innocent editor, then you will be in the position of harrassing someone. Tyrenius 12:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
What's MO? Even so, one non-vandal edit is simply not enough. If it's getting to you, then back off for a bit, and come back later. R&R. Tyrenius 12:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I hadn't seen it. I've blocked [[User:166.102.89.46|}} for the time being. You say it's a dynamic IP? In which case it might not be able to be blocked infefinitely. Tyrenius 13:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That makes sense. Just make sure you stay on the right side of the line in your responses. Tyrenius 14:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked Linden Arden for 24 hours for harassment for this post. Let me know if you receive further difficulties from him or any other user. However, please, as I have said before, refrain from any implication of personal attack yourself, even if provoked. It is not appropriate to leave an edit summary calling someone an "abusive user". Tyrenius 18:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)