User talk:Conradrock

Encyclopedia Dramatica
Personal content about your life was removed from Encyclopedia Dramatica. You may qualify for an article here though, so it could end up being restored. John66 (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Why am I blocked
Why am I blocked? I committed no vandalism. I was actually trying to be constructive and I was responding to people in a debate and you just cut me off. Conradrock (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As an aside, then what's this? 20:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no clue, but I'm the real me. I'm the one who actually registered with the email conrad@rockenhaus.com, right? Oh, and I'm willing to provide documents to settle the debate on my Veteran's status first of all. I personally would like to be unblocked to address the questions posed on the Mod Noticeboard and the Article's Talk page, as it's unfair that John66 was just going to lock the article without debate and Tinribmancer appears to have blocked me for my the dispute over this article, which is kind of messed up. Conradrock (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is vandalism. Oh, and "messed up"? Like your shitty site with it's overdosis on scat pics and rape? And it isn't an excuse for you to make a sock, which is against the rules! Tinribmancer (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that wasn't vandalism, that was me removing defamatory information as it isn't my site, my company just hosts it. I don't control their content. Explain to me how what I did was Vandalism when I was actually bringing up who really owns ED, who the leadership was? Or were you just abusing your admin powers and upset that I was removing defamatory information about myself Tinribmancer? I actually believe it's more of the latter. I think this block needs to be reviewed by someone independently because you're invested in that article because you hate that site and you think I own it when I'm here to correct the record.


 * Also, excuse me, I just said Conrad_Rock wasn't me. Don't you accuse me of something without evidence. Unlike you I believe in fair play. Conradrock (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Discord
Did you attempt to contact me via Discord? 21:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll be more than happy to share documents with you to show you that I was an honorably discharged Veteran, such as a redacted DD-214 and my VA Letter of Benefits, just email me at conrad@rockenhaus.com. Conradrock (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not my place. I am neither a Board member nor a Mod. 21:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw that you asked that in the ED Page discussion if I was willing to show documentation, I am, that's what I was offering. Conradrock (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I was acting as a level head until a Mod showed up. Now that they have (LeftyGreenMario and Bongolian) I intend to step aside and let them handle this matter. 21:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Since this issue is likely relevant to the RMF board (defamation, email addresses involved), I've (I'm a member of the board too) contacted them and I hope some issues get resolved. 21:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The content in question has been removed and I have blocked a troll sock-puppet using your name. So the content has been removed but if you want to discuss it here, feel free to. According to the official U.S. Navy website "25 June 2013, the military judge dismissed the charges and specifications for attempted arson, swearing false oaths, hoax designed to cause panic, communicating a threat, and some of the false official statements, but returned a verdict of guilty for the remaining false official statements and wearing unauthorized awards and qualifications. The military judge sentenced him to a letter of reprimand, a Bad Conduct Discharge, and 157 days confinement.", in response you claim this "defamation" and you received an honourable discharge but there is no public documentation of this, why? I find that odd. No mention on any website about your honourable discharge but several reliable sources saying the opposite. And in 2017, what is this forgery thing, why were you charged for forgery ? This is all from public records, not "defamation" to quote from. John66 (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The content in question has been removed and I have blocked a troll sock-puppet using your name. So the content has been removed but if you want to discuss it here, feel free to. According to the official U.S. Navy website "25 June 2013, the military judge dismissed the charges and specifications for attempted arson, swearing false oaths, hoax designed to cause panic, communicating a threat, and some of the false official statements, but returned a verdict of guilty for the remaining false official statements and wearing unauthorized awards and qualifications. The military judge sentenced him to a letter of reprimand, a Bad Conduct Discharge, and 157 days confinement.", in response you claim this "defamation" and you received an honourable discharge but there is no public documentation of this, why? I find that odd. No mention on any website about your honourable discharge but several reliable sources saying the opposite. And in 2017, what is this forgery thing, why were you charged for forgery ? This is all from public records, not "defamation" to quote from. John66 (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to kill me via high blood pressure?!?! Not here, not now! Wait for the Board to address this since there is a credible lawsuit threat against the site. 22:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The content in question has been removed and I have blocked a troll sock-puppet using your name. So the content has been removed but if you want to discuss it here, feel free to. According to the official U.S. Navy website "25 June 2013, the military judge dismissed the charges and specifications for attempted arson, swearing false oaths, hoax designed to cause panic, communicating a threat, and some of the false official statements, but returned a verdict of guilty for the remaining false official statements and wearing unauthorized awards and qualifications. The military judge sentenced him to a letter of reprimand, a Bad Conduct Discharge, and 157 days confinement.", in response you claim this "defamation" and you received an honourable discharge but there is no public documentation of this, why? I find that odd. No mention on any website about your honourable discharge but several reliable sources saying the opposite. And in 2017, what is this forgery thing, why were you charged for forgery ? This is all from public records, not "defamation" to quote from. John66 (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I never disclaimed the Court Martial. However, if you review how the military justice system process works, within the UCMJ, once a Court Martial is complete, the Defense files what is known as a "Clemency Petition" with the Convening Authority while the Convening Authority reviews the case [] The Convening Authority has the authority to accept the findings, reduce the findings, or throw it out altogether. My Convening Authority saw that the Trial Counsel's argument, that I was attempting to seek more Veteran's Benefits, didn't hold water because the medical condition I was being treated for was going to have me discharged at 100% disability anyway, so he decided to disagree with the findings. Convening Authority decisions aren't public unlike Court Martial decisions, and they only just made the Court Martial decisions public back in 2013 because of the outcry over the light punishment over military sexual assault cases. Additionally, there's no website that lists HONORABLE discharges anyway.


 * So, when you don't have the whole story and I advise you that what you're putting on that page is incorrect and I have evidence to back it up, it's defamation. For example, I receive full VA benefits, if you receive a bad conduct discharge, that's not possible. I receive a VA pension, which wouldn't be possible with a bad conduct discharge. The forgery charge was dismissed, that was back when I was accepting checks for dedicated servers and someone gave me a fake check, I then paid for my connectivity, by that time I couldn't pay the bank back within the 5 days they wanted for the amount, so the check was sent to the Sheriff. It was resolved once I provided the emails and I learned to never accept checks again.


 * I'm going to say this, am I a perfect person? No, I'm not, but that doesn't give you the right to start calling me "ED's owner" and start posting shitty stuff that is either inaccurate, exaggerated, or outright false about me. For Example:


 * I was raising money for ED: No, that was actually an Advertising Gimmick. Of course I'm technically "holding the bag" for ED as they owe me money.


 * I think the website is funny, or I agree with ideas, or anything like that: No, not really. I just believe in the freedom of an open Internet and the freedom of speech, other than spam and porn. I'm actually more politically aligned with this site believe it or not, as I'm a Left Wing Libertarian. All of my contributions to the site have been announcements on the Wiki advising that a requested MediaWiki extension has been installed, or that a performed maintenance action has been completed. I'm very surprised at the judgment here though, just because I provide full service hosting, I have to like and agree with it? So everyone provides a service to something they like and agree with?


 * Finally, with the question of personal ethics, it's within my personal ethics to make sure that people have the right to communicate. That's why I provide a significant amount of Bandwidth to Tor Exit and Bridge hosting, if you know Tor, the Bridges are the ones that countries like China can't detect since they're not on the public directory. But hey, whatever. By the way, ED was never "hosted" GoDaddy, that was just an extra domain that was purchased for the owner for his SEO purposes and he couldn't buy it because his Serbian Credit Card wasn't working to purchase the domain. Also, it's still behind CloudFlare. It's never been dropped by a provider, they just run out of funds and the site shuts down, that's actually it. When they say that another provider shut us down, it's a scare tactic, it's something the Alt-Right does all the time.


 * With all of that in mind, I will say this. GreyPonyIT hosts ED, not my name. So please, get the facts in order, take my name out, or we can take this to Federal District Court. Conradrock (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * We have two tweets from the official ED twitter that you host ED through your company GreyPonyIT . I have made this clear on the article. ED have already mentioned your name. According to ED "He hosts us through his hosting company" and links to your twitter. This tweet from ED mentions your company GreyPonyIT. According to your official Twitter page for your company  "We are a Cloud Hosting Provider, VPS Provider, Dedicated Server Provider, and up and coming ISP founded by @RockRockenhaus". There is no reason why she not mention your name. It has already been mentioned by ED and you are the single owner of GreyPonyIT. John66 (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * GreyPonyIT has more than one owner, which is why it's an LLC. By the way, the person who's posting as "YellowBird" on here is trolling you all, I am not joking here. I have every intention of discussing this with my retained attorney tomorrow morning as this is a concerning situation. I mean, you loved Googling me so much maybe you should of researched how many litigation history and realized that I don't back down. Conradrock (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, I just saw you posted my picture on the page. I'm done, I think this is probably going to wind up becoming a legal situation. Now you're purposely associating me with ED just because I host them, which is borderline harassment. Let's see how a Federal Judge, who are usually business friendly by the way, views that. Conradrock (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Legal threats are not allowed per policy here. Please read Legal FAQ. Future conversation should be disallowed here. John66 (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The board's response
The board (Spud, David Gerard, and I) have agreed that the personal information, including the photo, should be removed from the site for privacy's sake as well as being ultimately irrelevant and even counterproductive to our site's goals. Do not create an article on him, and do not readd personal information back unless there's a very strong justification. 02:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)