User talk:Chadbryant/Archive2006-01

Talk Archives

2005

Note For Admins

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)[reply]

I have semi-protected your userpage. This should greatly reduce the "Dink" attacks while still allowing you to edit it. I don't know why nobody else has thought to do this. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 05:03, Jan. 11, 2006

Laurel Rose Willson

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)[reply]

I saw what you said in my talk page about equating her faking her own death with Elvis' or Morrison's. The thing is she has a lot more motivation for it and I just wouldn't put it past her after all the stunts she's pulled. Again, until I get further proof, maybe that speculation should be taken out. -- Bluejay Young 08:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Witham

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] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Pat Priest

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)[reply]

It works for me, even if I'm not fond up compromising over using correct style just to placate a vandal that has used over 140 sockpuppets. - Chadbryant 03:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, compromise is always better than edit warring. Even though both people walk away feeling like losers, Wikipedia as a whole feels like a winner. We don't have to deal with fighting and hurt feelings. See you around. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlemania 22

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)[reply]

SR 15

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)[reply]

Your edits/moves of that article are dubious at best. There is absolutely no reason to insist on deleting the infobox. - Chadbryant 07:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WillC

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)[reply]

So are we removing listings of wrestling events in sports venue articles? That's has always annoyed me. That's about as notable and relevant as listing every hair band that played in X venue the 80ies. ccwaters 13:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have quite an interest in wrestling, but unless it's as notable as a mention of an attendance record (i.e. WrestleMania III's draw at the Pontiac Silverdome), we don't need a wrestling mention in the article for every venue that has ever hosted a wrestling event. - Chadbryant 02:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my User talk:Ccwaters#Wrestling Arenas. ccwaters 02:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sock

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)[reply]

Re: Thanks

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)[reply]

Is your e-mail link here enabled? For obvious reasons, I can't reveal most of the backstory between myself and the user currently known as "TruthCrusader" on a Wikipedia talk page. Long story short, he is only here because I am. - Chadbryant 22:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my e-mail is activated here. tv316 22:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail. Chadbryant 22:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triple H's article

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)[reply]

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. - Chadbryant 16:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

personal info

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] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Deleted. — Mar. 15, '06 [21:41] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Question

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)[reply]

I am receiving similar messages in e-mail, all of which are being traced by the "anonymous" e-mail services used back to two IP blocks in the Czech Republic. The user behind TruthCrusader resides there (see [2], where he forgets to log in to remove the 3RR notice placed on his talk page) and has engaged in these acts here and elsewhere under a variety of pseudonyms for several years. - Chadbryant 23:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not extremely strong evidence, and the user has been blocked. Have you made a request at WP:RFCU?> KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made several requests there for TruthCrusader's previous sockpuppets (User:AvengerRSPW, etc.). The backlog is tremendous. - Chadbryant 20:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal tags

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)[reply]

I am tagging obvious sockpuppets as such, and nothing more. - Chadbryant 03:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed Farva's surprisingly strong grasp of everything from Wikipedia policies to how to properly sign his posts and cross-link articles, as well as how to use templates—all rarities in truly new editors—combined with his immediate targeting of you, your edits, and your ability to continue editing (he just requested I block you) with a fervor that I am doubtful any true newbie would have, I am inclined to suspect you may be right. I haven't seen enough evidence to block him as a sockpuppet, but support your application of a suspected sock tag on his page. I would strongly suggest, if he is truly innocent, that he should request a check user ruling on his account, which you say you have already done as well, to expedite the proof of his innocence. (If you have not requested a check-user yet, please do.) Obviously, accusing users of being sockpuppets should not be done lightly, but I have simply seen nothing to indicate that you are editing maliciously, or that you are a troll or vandal of some sort. Hopefully, the check user results will come quickly. Again, if you have not done so, request a check-user on FARVA, post the tag to his user page, and then please inform me you have done so. I will inform FARVA he is to keep the tag on his user page until this is resolved. JDoorj a m Talk 03:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After FARVA ignored my warning to keep the suspected sock tag on his user page, I put it back and locked it. FARVA was then blocked from editing Wikipedia by another administrator because of his incivil comments in response to your request for a check-user. Regardless of whether he is shown definitively to be a sockpuppet, he is obviously bound by the same Wiki policies as the rest of us. I thought you'd like to be brought up to speed on this issue. Please let me know about any future developments in this matter that need attention. JDoorj a m Talk 17:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With FARVA (talk · contribs) blocked for a month, you'll want to watch Eat At Joes (talk · contribs) and SteveInPrague (talk · contribs) - the blocks on those accounts (which necessitated the creation of User:FARVA) expired, and this user will undoubtedly return to one of them to continue his abuse. - Chadbryant 21:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve___ report to WP:RFI

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)[reply]

I was aware of the blocks - I would like those accounts investigated, as there is a 99.99999% chance they are being created by User:TruthCrusader. - Chadbryant 21:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 80.188.28.2

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)[reply]

Happy Easter

rec.sport.pro-wrestling

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)[reply]

No, the consensus reaches beyond that. If you want to have this looked at again, perhaps you should start up an article RFC. In the mean time, I'm going to continue following past consensus. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have, and I'm not the only person making the reverts. At least one of the editors making the reverts is one I know for sure is not a sockpuppet of anyone. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then bring it up on RFC. If the consensus in the RFC agrees with you, I'll be the first to admit that you were right and heck, I'd even restore your text myself. --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, take a look here first, which gives you a brief overview on how to list an article RfC. Then you add this article to the appropriate section. I'm not really sure which categories a pro-wrestling newsgroup would belong. You want this to reach the enough people to get good consensus, but you also want this to reach the right people. Maybe "Media, art, and literature" (because of the "media" component). I suggest you look at the types of articles that are listed in each category that looks decent enough and take your pick. Then you should create a new section in Talk:Rec.sport.pro-wrestling to present your case (and presumably TruthCrusader will also present his side). I'm logging off now, but I'll check back in a bit, so if youhave any problems, let me know, but I won't get back to you for a little while. Cheers, Deathphoenix ʕ 22:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: Linden Arden

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)[reply]

Sockpuppet Accusations

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)[reply]

There, I've replaced tags and comments with "sockpuppet or impersonator". Enjoy, Deathphoenix ʕ 01:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by "you wouldn't know unless you're actually on those accounts" is that you won't get a "You have new messages" notice because I only leave messages on the sockpuppet and impersonator accounts, not your own. Therefore, your own account is unaffected. On further reflection, I could have worded it better. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, and for not wording it better. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How low can he go...

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)[reply]

Dooby Scoo

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Linden Arden blocked

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)[reply]