Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DickWitham

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

Dick Witham




(This user also periodically edits without being logged in, revealing his location via various IPs in the 166.102.104.* and 166.102.89.* subnets, which both belong to Alltel.net, and are assigned to Milledgeville, Georgia.)

Long-time vandal with a roster of suspected/confirmed sockpuppets totaling over 160. The first three suspected socks listed have been given long-term or permanent blocks for sockpuppetry & other abuse. Tyrenius (a new, inexperienced admin) has resisted allowing the current account Dooby Scoo to be labeled as a suspected sockpuppet (despite many similarities in the modus operandi of this account and other suspected/confirmed "DickWitham" socks), so this request is being filed to confirm its status as a sock once and for all. - Chadbryant 05:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would certainly like to see proof of these accusations -- something Chadbryant repeatedly fails to provide in cases such as these. --Dooby Scoo 06:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Clerk note: Related case can be found at Requests_for_checkuser/Case/FARVA --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  05:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The most recent edits by Tub of Goo and They Call Him Flipper were in May, 2006. Are there any more recent socks? Thatcher131 06:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, this user took a hiatus from Wikipedia after having both of those socks blocked permanently. He appears to have returned specifically to stir trouble in the Rec.sport.pro-wrestling controversy. - Chadbryant 06:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Given your trollish and malicious behavior on Wikipedia, the "best of your knowledge" is suspect. Simply because you are attempting to place your own views into the rec.sport.pro-wrestling article and someone has taken a different viewpoint does NOT mean they are a returning form of a previous user. You should consider such a possibility before moving into areas such as this where you hold the possibility of being proven incorrect and looking foolish once again. --Dooby Scoo 06:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing to check against. Could we keep the incivility to a dull roar? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''