Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbitration rulings are binding on editors

1) Arbitration rulings are binding on editors; violations will be regarded seriously.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions. Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not change other users' comments

2) A user may not edit another user's comments except to make insubstantial changes (such as archiving/moving, formatting, or correcting typos) or with express permission from the other user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied most of a past principle from Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

3) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This is considered editing in bad faith. State your point, but don't attempt to illustrate it experimentally (e.g. by using an anonymous IP to evade a block).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Mostly copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions, with the last part added by me. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not provoke other editors

4) Editing in a manner so as to intentionally provoke other editors is a form of trolling and goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Use negotiation first for resolving disputes

5) Although negotiation is not explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution it is contemplated under the initial steps of Wikipedia's dispute resolution policies under language which suggests users who are in conflict talk to one another on their respective talk pages and on the talk page of any article in dispute. Effective negotiation often requires courtesy and respect for the other party and their point of view, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars

6) Edit wars or revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration. When disagreements arise, users are expected to adhere to the three-revert rule and discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad nauseum. "Slow revert wars," where an editor persistently reverts an article but technically adheres to the three-revert rule are also strongly discouraged and are unlikely to constitute working properly with others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

7) If an edit is reverted a user should make an attempt at discussion before changing it back.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not provoke new users

8) When another user is having trouble due to editing conflicts or a dispute with another user it is inappropriate to provoke them as it is predictable that the situation will escalate. Provocation of a new or inexperienced user by an experienced and sophisticated user is especially inappropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not use other accounts or IPs to evade blocks or make reverts

9) Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Uncertainties about sockpuppetry in a dispute

10) For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not use sock puppets to evade legitimate blocks

11) Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this. Evading a ban in this manner causes the timer on the ban to restart, and may further lengthen the ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from WP:SOCK. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets and consensus

12) Sock puppets should not be used for purposes of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from WP:SOCK. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Staying cool during disputes

13) When editing on highly conflicted topics, editors should not allow themselves to be goaded into ill-considered edits and policy violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits that may be perceived as inaccurate are not vandalism

14) Sometimes, users will insert content into an article that is not necessarily accurate, in the belief that it is. By doing so in good faith, they are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia and improve it. If you believe that there is inaccurate information in an article, ensure that it is, and/or discuss its factuality with the user who has submitted it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from WP:VANDAL. Supported by these comments from me and Sam Korn [1] [2] Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Stubborn edits are not vandalism

15) Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret — you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from WP:VANDAL. Supported by these comments from me and Sam Korn [3] [4] Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Leyasu on revert parole

1) By remedy in a prior arbitration case Leyasu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on revert parole, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Leyasu#...on_Leyasu.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Leyasu unable to conform to revert parole

2) Leyasu is unable to conform to the revert parole imposed on him and having exhausted the 5 block limit is now subject to blocks of up to one year Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Leyasu#Enforcement_of_parole.2FProbation. He is currently blocked for one month Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Leyasu#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Deathrocker has history of blocks

3) Deathrocker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has an extensive history of blocks for quarreling and revert warring, often in a context where he is quarreling with Leyasu.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

My block log isn't that extensive if you take into account that most shown are from one spercific block, with the time been changed and inexperienced admins attempting to make the block stick.... take a look for yourself. - Deathrocker 22:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Editwarring by Deathrocker

4) Deathrocker has engaged in extensive editwarring in the same genre of articles frequented by Leyasus such as Gothic Music Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Deathrocker#Gothic_Music_and_Nu_Metal_.28Banned_By_Admin_Sceptre.29.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Myself and Leyasu have engaged in edit wars with each other in the past (months ago), but this doesn't have anything to do with the reason THIS arbcom case was brought up. I don't see how it is relevent to the current case. - Deathrocker 22:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Leyasu incivil in response to a block

5) After Johnleemk gave Leyasu his current 1-month block on May 10, Leyasu called Johnleemk "a complete bitch for an admin" and continued, "well fuck it, if your not going to be civil neither am i. I made a mistake, so deal with it. If i was going to violate my fucking parole, id of done it in some grandeous and theatrical manner" [5]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu evading 1-month block through an anonymous sockpuppet

6) Soon after receiving his one-month block, Leyasu declared his intentions to evade that block. [6] Later that day, an IP signed its posts as Leyasu [7] [8] [9] and was blocked as a probable sock for the duration of Leyasu's one-month block. [10]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker and Leyasu have had evidence ready against each other for months

7) Leyasu put up an evidence page against Deathrocker on March 16, soon after his own arbitration case concluded. He said that only he and administrators could edit the page and that anyone else who edited the page was committing vandalism. [11] Soon after, Deathrocker, through the sockpuppet User:DeathrockerComment, set up an evidence page against Leyasu at User:Deathrocker/BringingDownTheShrine.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This evidence was also used for the failed RfAr two months ago Will (^E_@) T 10:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu has (likely) used anons to violate revert parole

8) 86.143.126.71 (talk · contribs) made 26 reverts to Children of Bodom in 57 minutes while Leyasu was blocked. A similar IP also reverted Children of Bodom to Leyasu's preferred version and confessed to being Leyasu. [12] [13] A result of a CheckUser request stated that three anonymous IPs were "highly likely" to be Leyasu; if they were, then Leyasu was using them to violate revert parole. [14] [15] Leyasu was not blocked for this infraction, although Tony Sidaway blocked him for one week soon afterwards for a separate violation of revert parole. Separately, Leyasu made a comment to WP:AN/I in which he admitted to violating a block that had been set on him. [16]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have just expanded/clarified the original statement. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Different sides in the Children of Bodom content dispute are calling each other's edits "vandalism"

9) Leyasu and Ryouga (talk · contribs) both called each other's edits "vandalism" in messages quoted in this post to WP:AE. [17]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker calling good-faith edits vandalism

10) During a revert war, an anonymous editor at Moi dix Mois accused Deathrocker of assuming all anonymous edits to be from sockpuppets. Deathrocker responded by reverting the anon's edit and leaving the summary, "Repetetive annoymous vandalism, by suspect sock who is under investigation." [18] (Sceptre blocked Deathrocker for four days following this revert war.) During a revert war over Selling out in which a paragraph Deathrocker added was disputed, Deathrocker called removing the paragraph "vandalism". [19]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker editing Leyasu's comment and calling him a vandal

11) Deathrocker modified a message from Leyasu on Sceptre's talk page to enforce his view that Leyasu was vandalizing an article. [20]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker assumed bad faith and personally attacked Leyasu based on a prior ArbCom decision

12) In his "Bringing Down the Shrine" page, Deathrocker replied to Leyasu's claim that he (i.e. Deathrocker) was a problem user by saying, "A user who is notorious on Wikipedia to the extent that they are already on ArbCom parole is trying to say I'm a problem user?" In addition, Deathrocker attacked Leyasu for having potentially conflicting userboxes (presumably "This user is a father" / "This user is female") with the comment, "Leyasu then posted some sarcastic comment on my page... although "she" was still pushing "her(?)" POV on the article." [21] Deathrocker also used his user subpage to say, "Leyasu enjoys twisteing words anc making up bullshit" [22], "As always the things Leyasu is claming is complete bullshit (no suprises there)... what relevence is me been banned for 3RR on unrelated articles, when you have just returned from a 42 hour ban and are limited to one revert a day parole which you have totally disregarded" [23] , "Leyasu was been untruthful in a comment to Sceptre (whos ass she is renouned for kissing)" [24],

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"Bringing Down the Shrine" page is an evidence page used in a prior ArbCom case, it was used as counter-evidence, in regards to attacks, and other claims made in a log Leyasu used for that case. That ArbCom case against me was rejected due to the evidence I showed on that page.

If it was used as my evidence for part of a prior ArbCom case, how can I have used it to personally attack Leyasu in regards to a prior ArbCom decision? (I hadn't been involved in an ArbCom case before that)... Answer = I can't have.

Again I dont see what this (or most of the stuff on this page) has to do with the current case? This is from months and months ago. All very confusing really. - Deathrocker 22:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker claimed that Leyasu was wiki-stalking him

13) In his Bringing Down the Shrine user subpage, Deathrocker said that Leyasu had a "disturbing obsession" with him [25] and remarked, "On a serious note. I do find Leyasu's cyber-stalk of me on Wikipedia quite frightening, it creeps me out, and has actually made me concerened for my personal safety, please stop this beaviour Leyasu." [26] Leyasu took this as a threat of real-life violence; Deathrocker then told Leyasu to "stop playing the victim". [27]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker removing warnings

14) Deathrocker has removed vandalism warnings several times from his talk page, as recently as May 27. [28] He referred to one editor who warned him as a "spambot". [29]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

An automated bot left a message on my page seconds after I made a genuine edit on the article Jagged album page. [30] If people are unable to create bots which work properly, then they shouldn't use them in the first place. No vandalism was commited as the diff shows.

Messages by out of control bots which are known to spam Wikipedia talkpages (often making mistakes) are automatically deleted from my page, they are not administrative messages or anything like that and not welcome on my page. - Deathrocker 22:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Arguing with each other on other users' talk pages

15) Deathrocker and Leyasu have used other users' talk pages to argue with each other [31] [32]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu placed a "final warning" template on a user talk page for a content dispute

16) Leyasu gave a "final warning" template to an anonymous user for reverting Leyasu's changes to Children of Bodom. It was the first edit made by that IP. [33] Leyasu filed a CheckUser request involving this IP [34], but it turned out inconclusive. [35] Previously, Leyasu had been cautioned several times that content reverts in content disputes are not reverts of vandalism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu was warned by two admins against further block evasion

17) After his 1-month block expired, Idont Havaname warned Leyasu against future block evasion. [36] Tony Sidaway warned Leyasu further, saying in his edit summary, "I'm going to indulge you on this occasion, but if you ever edit while blocked again I'll go to the Arbitration Committee and ask them to make you bannable". [37]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu continued evading blocks despite warnings

18) Less than 24 hours after he resumed editing under his main account, Leyasu violated his revert parole again [38] and was blocked for three months by User:Ral315. [39] Soon after he was blocked, Leyasu resumed evading the block through the use of IPs [40] and sockpuppets [41].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu currently banned from articles related to heavy metal

19) Tony Sidaway banned Leyasu from editing articles related to heavy metal music. [42] [43]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I think it was wise of Tony to insert the ban on those articles for that user, it doesn't seem to be as effective as it should be.

As the evidence page has shown, that user seems to have no problem evading their 3 month block. And continues to evade not only that block but the indefinate block on those articles, using anons. [44][45] the IP changes seem to be frequent.

Are there any remedies which would lead to a swift and speedy block for the IP's been used by the user to evade such blocks? - Deathrocker 20:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Deathrocker placed on revert parole

1) Deathrocker is placed on revert parole. If he reverts any article more than once per 24 hour period or more than 2 times in any 7 day period or more than 3 times in any 30 day period he may be briefly blocked. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deathrocker#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Since returning from a ban which I was given for revert warring nearly 3 months ago. I havent violated WP:3RR since. If I am placed on revert parole for obeying the 3RR policy since I was banned for it around 3 months ago, it sends the wrong message. My editing has reformed since that time. - Deathrocker 22:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Since being back, Deathrocker has used various tricks and methods and Wiklawyering to violate 3RR. As shown in my evidence, his most common method is to do batch reverts marking them as minor edits with 'clean up' in the summaries. Deathrocker also often Wikilawyers against every warning he gets from Admins, often removing them from his talk page making it so some admins do not know of his history of violating 3RR. 02:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Ley Shade

There is no "finding of fact" in Leyasu's claims. There are no diffs to show where clean ups by me have been reverts, infact quite the opposite. For example; [46] shows me stating "complete clean-up" in the edit summary, when the previous edit on that article was by myself.

Also the personal attack which claims I am "wikilawyering" is a claim of falcity, warnings are not "removed", they along with all old messages are archived,[47] the "Archive" section is clearly visable to anybody who is visting my talkpage, which is in accordance with wikipedia policy.

Leyasu is however in violation of the official blocking policy even on this page with the above comment, which was contributed using IP 86.132.133.69[48] to evade his current 3 month block. - Deathrocker 20:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't see any point in doing this, per Deathrocker. It's also a lot harsher than the penalty Leyasu originally got. Maybe a regular 24-hour 1RR revert parole (the one Leyasu got) would be ok. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu revert parole modified

2) Leyasu is placed on revert parole. If he reverts any article more than once per 24 hour period or more than 2 times in any 7 day period or more than 3 times in any 30 day period he may be blocked for up to a year. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Leyasu#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I agree, if we don't just have him banned. He's really digging himself a serious hole by evading all of the various blocks he's been given. (See User:Leyasu1.) --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker cautioned

3) Deathrocker is cautioned against using excessive reverts to bait Leyasu.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed; wording can be changed as necessary. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker on personal attack parole

4) Deathrocker is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he may be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, due to diffs such as this one [49] which I gave as an example in one of my WP:AE posts [50]; this was a ruling given to Leyasu in his case. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu banned

5) For consistently violating his revert parole and evading his blocks through anonymous IPs and sockpuppets, Leyasu is banned for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Tony Sidaway has already banned Leyasu from heavy-metal articles [51], and most of Leyasu's edits have been to those articles. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Banning me from a batch set of articles is pointless when your not willing to deal with someone who consistantly violates policys on them day in, day out. The whole purpose of me evading the block is to highly the fact your willing to ban me for violating one policy, but willing to ban another for violating several everyday. 02:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Ley Shade

Evading your block to make a point is itself a violation of WP:POINT. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 02:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker placed on revert parole similar to Leyasu's original revert parole

6) Deathrocker is placed on standard revert parole. He is hereby limited to a maximum of one content revert per page per day for one year. Each revert must be explicitly marked as such.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think Deathrocker should have revert parole in some form, based on Leyasu's evidence and his edit warring with Leyasu; but I think the revert parole that Fred suggested is too strict, so I'm proposing this one instead. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu limited to one account

7) Leyasu shall edit under that username and no other. Additionally, other accounts or anonymous IPs which due to area of interest, style, manner, or IP corroboration, can be reasonably ascribed to Leyasu, shall be banned. Violation of these remedies under another username or IP shall result in the the penalty being applied to the main account, User:Leyasu, as well.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on block evasion. Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enforcement by block Deathrocker

1) Should Deathrocker violate his revert parole he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deathrocker#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enforcement by block Leyasu

2) Should Leyasu violate his revert parole he may be blocked for up to a year. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deathrocker#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: