Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker

Statements moved from the case application

Two parties, Leyasu and Deathrocker, gave statements far too large to fit comfortably onto the main case page. The statements of non-listed parties and outsiders have also been moved here.

Statement by User:Deathrocker

This case by Sceptre has already been thrown out once before, since that time I have made no violations of any Wikipedia policy or been disruptive at all since. Just incase this has't beem explicity made clear... no attempt at meditation or attemps at discussion were made post the incident the reporter has a problem with and prior the case been brought here; which is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes

Origins

Originally over a month Sceptre blocked me for 4 days for violating WP:3RR, Leyasu recieved the same length ban, even thought that user was violating ArbCon ruling... I requested to be unblocked on my user page... as this was in clear violation of WP:3RR which states users may only be blocked for up to 24 hours for 3RR, somebody looked at the case and without showing me anywhere to dsipute my claim, removed the tag claiming policies that do not exist as "official", while refusing to show me where..... convinently the user then suggest I would be blocked for a month for disrupting, which in itself was a violation of Wikipedia policies and ridiculous... if you view my block log... 6 of those are merely change in time duration for the one incident or making sure that single block stuck. (An incident which was over a month ago and has already been rejected here)

It was during my one month ban that Sceptre tried to slap me with this before... it was REJECTED unanimously.

He then tried to flog a dead horse (at the time he even said himself "I hope this is not flogging a dead horse") with a RfC on the same case, as it was redundant and already been rejected I saw no need to participate and told him, I was done with the case as it had already been thrown out... and now its seems his good friend Leyasu (the same Leyasu who has violated ArbCon parole 5 times) has asked him to bring the same case up again and have another go. Regardless of the fact that I've made no violations since. In the past Sceptre has admitted been bias in Leyasu's favour.

Helping Wikipedia community, by reporting "highly likely" socks

Since returning from my block as mentioned, I haven't once violated any Wiki policies, or the 3RR that I was blocked for, I've made sure not to break the boundries of that...

I have however reported two suspected socks of Leyasu on the incidents board in the last week (anonymous IP's that only operate while Leyasu has been blocked, on that users prime articles that they had been recently blocked for warring with various users on) as their IP's were very similar to ones which were reported by highly respect admin; user:Idont Havaname and found to be "highly likely" socks of Leyasu [1] by user:Jayjg.. I was doing a service to Wikipedia reporting a recurring problem... is that bad faith?... no its common sense.

Personal Attacks and Defamatory lies against myself

Leyasu however did show up and personally attack me on the incidents board once their latest block was up... claiming I’d impersonated him, bragged about it and been warned, which is a total crock of lies... I have NEVER impersonated ANYBODY on Wikipedia or been warned for such a thing... the user also claimed I was nearly permanently blocked and that I was blocked from editing the Gothic Metal article... which was NEVER the case... I don’t see how this is “good faith” by Leyasu, spreading malicious lies.

Sceptre then showed up on the same incident reporting and told me "not to be uncivil" even though all I was doing was reporting a "highly likely" [2] suspected sock. Whereas his good buddy Leyasu was attacking me, of course not a word was said about that. Sceptre also claimed I was "close to a permanent block" a month ago, which as stated was NEVER the case if you look on the previous ArbCon attempt by this so called admin Sceptre, a case which as mentioned before was rejected unanymously.

user:Deiz told me previous to Sceptre's reply on the incidents board, about cases against Leyasu for the same thing here WP:AE and suggested I detailed the latest suspected case... to which I obliged. How this makes me viable for ArbCon is beyond me.

Suggestion

It would actually be nice to see Sceptre’s admin powers removed atleast for a trial period, he doesn’t seem to use any logic while putting things like this up... has admitted been bias infavour of users before.. yet he is allowed to continue putting things like this out for them

And I suspect bias against me and anybody who reports Leyasu for suspectedly violating parole. This seems to be the only administrator who has a problem with me at present, as I have even been working with other admins recently to help improve Wikipedia. Is a child really the best person to handle an admin possition? It seems rather odd to me?

Sceptre is actually in violation of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes policies with this request.. it states that Arbitration is the last course of action... his current problem seems to be that I've reported suspected sockpuppets (something which numerous users other than myself have suspected recently too) [3]

There was no attempt at discussing why this was a problem in his eyes, other than bringing it straight here and leaving a message on my page saying a comment was needed... I suspect that he is still sore that a month old triad against me was reject... hense the bringing up of old, solved, irrelevent disputed.

How anybody can be up for ArbCon parole for reporting suspected sockpuppets (suspected by numerous other members too) is entirely ludicrous. - Deathrocker 05:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Update

The information Leyasu has provided is exactly the same from over a month ago... adding nothing new, this was used in the previous ArbCon case which was rejected/thrown out as it was found that most of the so called "evidence" Leyasu provided was untruthful... this is the sort of thing which make it hard for so many users to work with Leyasu, when he spreads defamatory lies and personal attacks towards them, which if you actually click on the diffs he has provided, you will find many do not even contain the things he claims.

For example; I have never "admitted baiting Leyasu into breaking parole", this is the kind of defamatory lie I'm talking about... go ahead click the diff provided by Leyasu [4] tell me where am I baiting?.... Simple answer, I'm not. If you actually read this over a month old diff, you will find its actually in discussion of Leyasu returning from a 42 hour ban straight back into a revert war... this was over a month ago, of no relevence to this case and is just Leyasu presuming that people who judge the case won't look into the diffs provided.. because most of them do not contain the things he claims.

I have also never "threatened admins Rory and Tawker for abusing admin power"... simply because they didn't have admin powers to abuse a month ago when the incident occured (aparently Tawker has since become an admin, acording to Sceptre), I didn't mistake them as admins, as you can see by Sceptre's edit [5] Leyasu seems to think they were admins. If you read the diffs I don't "attack" either Rory or Tawker anyway.

I made a reply to the original claims/attacks by Leyasu (including a couple mentioned in the last two paragraphys) here over a month ago; User:Deathrocker/BringingDownTheShrine during that time.

The user was also warned in their ArbCon ruling about fasley claiming content disputes as "vandalism" [6] and been uncivil to people [7], he contiunes to violate this even on this page.

The user has offered nothing new that has any relevence to this case at hand. - Deathrocker 06:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Tawker was given admin powers on April 10 (his RfA) Will (^E_@) T 11:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, and that was after I was banned over a month ago, so my point still stands. - Deathrocker 21:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Update Pt. 2

Leyasu claimed I was "Wikipedia:Wikilawyering", which in itself is a personal attack against myself. It states that Wikilayering is "inappropriate use of legal technicalities with respect to Wikipedia's policy", stating the fact that this Arbitration case violates Wikipedia policy, because whatever current issues Sceptre seem to have, no attempt was made at Meditation or discussion before bringing it here, which is stated is official wikipedia policy to do so Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes is perfectly reasonable and not "inappropriate" use. See here for the comment; [8]

Also a person attack against myself claiming I was "snide", when mentioning how this is Sceptre's current triad against myself, which if you read the entire case, as mentioned Sceptre has admitted bias before and has tried to ressurect issues that have been thrown out before, so it is in my eyes a "triad".

Statement by User:Tony Sidaway

I've been involved in enforcement of arbitration remedies on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu, to wit, a seven-day block for his fifth violation of his revert parole [9], so I recuse as clerk.

Leyasu claims that he has been impersonated, and there is some circumstantial evidence to support this [10]. A week or so ago, on the other hand, there was a request for a sock check on some claimed socks of Leyasu, and Jayjg then replied that it is "highly likely" that the IP addresses are him [11].

For the moment I am watching closely but, because of Leyasu's civil and apparently good-faith responses, taking his word for it that he is not socking. Despite errors, he appears to be making an honest effort to stick to his revert parole since his return, and is asking me to deal with what he perceives as vandalism on Children of Bodom. This is an encouraging sign and I have lifted a ban, which I imposed earlier today under his probation. on editing Black metal. I will be investigating this on my own account with a view to taking necessary action to enable normal dispute resolution to proceed on that particular article. --Tony Sidaway 22:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Upon examination, Leyasu's complaint is about what appears to my inexpert eye to be a nuance of heavy metal subgenre [12]. Whilst I am not qualified to make judgements on heavy metal, it has the appearance of disputed content (and perhaps a rather contentious edit war) rather than vandalism that can be fixed by the techniques to which Leyasu has resorted. --Tony Sidaway 01:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Leyasu

Gothic Music and Nu Metal (Banned By Admin Sceptre)

This was a problem i had with Deathrocker who was openly vandalisng musical articles including blanking, reverting any edit made to articles, POV pushing, ignoring WP:NPOV, personal attacks in edit summaries, and possible internet trolling.

Below is a revert war i had been involved in with this user, [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46].

I stopped during this point to make comment twice on the articles talk page to the user, asking for co-operation and discussion of changes in line with Wikipedia policys, and also provided the NPOV tutorial and explained deliberatly blanking pages is vandalism, [47], [48].

I went on to make several minor edits to the article over an hour to make it less biased to any view, the cumulation of those efforts being here [49]. Immediatly the user went back to vandalisng the page starting another revert war, using the edit summaries for personal attacks, [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58].

The user then went on to try to delete the article by claiming a merger when there was no dispute on this, which i reverted due to it being vandalism [59], [60]. This was a bad veiling though as the user never merged the articles, and instead redirected Goth Music to Goth Rock instead [61].

This user did not stop at the Gothic Music article though, he also went on to incite a revert war on the Nu Metal article, removing sourced information that User:WesleyDodds, a respectable and highly experienced user involved with the article reverted. [62], [63], [64], [65]. This user then went on to vandalise the page using blanking and internet trolling methods, ignoring NPOV, and i quote in this paticulat edit summary saying You are a prick to myself [66], the edit war is on these diffs, [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78].

Deathrocker ignored all offers to work peacefully and was instistant on blanking articles that dont agree solely with his POV, and then Deleting them through a paper trail of redirects when admins pointed out he cannot force his POV on them.

Gothic Metal

The anon reverted the revert on the article which Deathrocker performed after he was unbanned after 12 hours [79].

Deathrocker reverted it, claiming the newbie as a sock puppet, yet offered no proof [80].

The anon reverted this noting that Deathrocker was biting noobs [81].

Deathrocker also persisted in a revert war on Gothic Metal, violating 3RR here as well [82], the reason for removing it being 'lack of sources', even though the information is cited several times in the article.

These reverts and removel of citations continue, despite his 3RR ban, on the note of Deathrocker 'disliking' gothic metal,[83], [84], [85].

Heavy Metal Music

Deathrocker decided to vandalise the Heavy metal music article, which has been a featured article, declaring that 'his POV is the true POV and all others are disallowed' [86], [87].

This was noted by WesleyDodds, a English Major and user who works with me, Spearhead, and the Wikiproject Metal, to improve metal articles, with Deathrocker deciding to start a revert war with anon's and the Wikiproject Metal users, [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94]. Despite all the reverting, the user Loudenvier said that Deathrocker was POV pushing and starting a revert war on a featured article, [95]. Another user noted that Deathrocker was violting WP:NPOV, as well, [96]. Deathrockers basic response to this was to say that everyone else is wrong, he is the only person who is right, and that Wikipedia's three core policys (WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR) dont apply to him, [97].

Admittance To Baiting Into Violating 1RR

Here Deathrocker admits to pushing myself to violate my parole so he can have me banned from Wikipedia, [98].

Userpage Vandalism

Deathrocker also attemped to vandalise comments on Admin Sceptre's talk page, [99], due to Sceptre having previously banned Deathrocker for his serial violations of policy across articles.

Deathrocker also vandalised my user page (Leyasu), [100].. Admin Sceptre reverted this himself, pointing out to Deathrocker that he cannot attack as being a 'sock puppeter' simply because Deathrocker cannot force his POV onto all articles, [101].

After Sceptre had removed it, Deathrocker readded it, claiming everyone was 'vandalising', [102].

Threatening Admins

After being blocked by admin Sceptre for a period of four days, the user Deathrocker chose to request an Unblock [103].

This was answered nicely by Rory096 telling Deathrocker he wasnt able to get an unblock without a reason, [104].

Deathrocker responced by Wikilawyering on the 3 Revert Rule policy of Wikipedia, and accusing admin Sceptre of abusing his administrator powers for blocking him [105].

Admin Tawker then told Deathrocker that this was another 3RR block in a short period of time, and that he was welcome to edit constructly when the block expired [106]. Rory also seconded this, pointing out it was Deathrockers seventh ban for 3RR in a month and the extended block was justified [107].

Deathrocker responded again by trying to Wikilwayer phttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deathrocker&diff=next&oldid=44288932].

Admin Tawker politly told Deathrocker it was at the discrection of the Admin, and to just wait the 4 days to be unblocked, and removing the unblock tag[108].

Deathrocker refuted this, Wikilarywering and accusing Rory and Tawker of abusing their administrator powers, readding the unblock tag, [109].

Tawker again removed the unblock, telling Deathrocker that after Wikilawyering and accusing the admins of abusing their powers, he wasnt going to get an unblock, [110].

Deathrocker then readded the the tag, telling Tawker he wasnt allowed to remove it 'without his permission', and accusing admin Sceptre of abusing his powers again, [111].

Tawker then went on to tell Deathrocker that making personal attacks at the Admins wasnt going to get him an unblock either, [112].

At this point Admin Essjay answered the unblock, telling Deathrocker that it has been noted by many admins that he has tried to Wikilawyer his unblock, tried to personally attack and threaten admins into unblocking him, and has engaged in multiple attempts at disrupting Wikipedia. Admin Essjay also noted that if this behaviour continued, that he would extended the block by a week, while the ANI considered a permenant block, [113].

Deathrocker didnt learn from this and continued Wikilawyering and making personal attacks, now directing this behaviour at admin Essjay, [114].

Deathrocker then erased all the notices, openly violating policy on not removing admin warnings from user pages on his claim that 'policies dont affect me', [115].

Admin Freakofnature then reverted the removel per policy, [116].

Deathrocker then reverted admin Freakofnature, claiming vandalism and abuse of administrator powers by admin Freak, [117].

The admin reverted this again, [118].

Deathrocker then reverted again, claiming he is allowed to 3RR on his talk page, and that Freak was abusing admin powers,[119].

Freak didnt respond and just reverted again, [120].

Deahtrocker then reverted again, removing the information to try for another Unblock attempt, [121].

Sceptre reverted this, [122], which Deathrocker reverted again, [123].

Freak reverted, [124], Deathrocker pursued a revert war while claiming he should be unbanned from his serial 3RR ban, [125].

This revert war between Deathrocker and various admins as such continued, with Deathrocker repeatedly claiming abuse of administrator powers and ownership of the talk page, [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131].

Harrasment And Impersonation

User Deathrocker posted an abusive comment on the Gothic Metal talk page directed at myself claiming, Now that you are back and no longer sneak reverting under anons [132].

Deathrocker also spent time setting up a complaint about me on the ANI board, making personal attacks including its time to pull the plug [133]. When i posted a response, [134], Deathrocker proceeded to make personal attacks at me [[135], including Nice try but as usual your lying, more typical BS from you and what any of your garbage lies has to do with this incident, is beyond me.

Admin Sceptre, a wholey respected Admin, responded to Deathrocker [136], warning him to stop being incivil.

After this Deathrocker went and then tried the same thing the AE board, [137].

Personal Attacks And Wikilawyering On ArbCom

Deathrocker has user his comment space the ArbCom case to make personal attacks against both myself and Admin Scepte [138], including He then tried to flog a dead horse, and Sceptre doesnt use any logic when putting things like this up.

User Deathrocker also recently attempted to Wikilawyer on the arbirrition talk page into having the case against him annuled, also making a snide and incivil comment about sceptre "Sceptre's current triad", [139]. Deathrocker also makes claim i am using sockpuppets, even though a Check user showed that i wasnt, and the fact Deathrocker is under suspicion for using anons to impersonate me. Ley Shade 21:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker went on to make more personal attacks including "it is a ridiculous claim on your part, and one that is of course false" [140].

After apologising to Deathrocker for coming across uncivil [141], and asking him not to make personal attacks [142], Deathrocker carried on claiming that my ArbCon statement is a personal attack and "instead of trying to pull me up, on your "interpretations", and "this is the BS I get for my efforts to help", "Again your favourite hobby taking my words out of context" and "it isn't my responsibility if you have an inability to stick to the terms of paroles" [143].

I notified the involved admins of these personal attacks and asked for help and advice, as i felt that Deathrocker was probally making the attacks to bait me into responding in a distastefull manner back [144], [145], [146]. Tony responded and noted that Deathrocker was attempting to bait me into violating my parole, and that i was to avoid responding [147]. Since then i have moved Deathrocker's comments from my statement to his own and discountined connection with the user, apart from contributing to my Statement has incidents involving Deathrocker and Myself happen Ley Shade

Deathrocker has also been incivil to myself and Sceptre on the Abirrition talk page [148] where he makes comments such as, "you and you're buddy are confused", and attempts to further disrupt the Arbirrition case through Wikilawyering claiming that because Sceptre did not follow the exact policy the case is void and against policy "Thus making the current case a violation of Wikipedia policies".

After removing Deathrockers comments from my Statement to his own, Deathrocker replaced them [149] as an attempt to bait me into violating my parole as noted already by Tony.

Deathrocker then proceeded to make more Personal Attacks on my Statement, defacing it [150]. Some of the Personal Attacks include:

• "This whole episode with you is becoming very childish. (Deathrocker made this comment even though myself and three admins have put in statements against Deathrocker).

• "'you don't see how that is utterly ridiculous?? ". (Deathrocker has made claim about the arbirittion case being null several times, this one denoting the case as ridiculous)

• "Just to clarify for anybody still keeping up with this sham of a case, that is still in violation of Wikipedia policies". (Here Deathrocker openly branches his personal attacks out to include the arbirrition committe)

• "As already stated the bulk of what Leyasu was trying to "attack" me". (Here Deathrocker explicitly states that my Statement is a Personal Attack in violation of my Parole)

• "A "grasp at straws" attempt to get something against me". (Deathrocker here claims my statement is a 'Grasp At Straws' to find things to blame him for, even though all diffs have been provided)

• "the BS comment was in relation to all o this that has happened from me trying to HELP Wikipedia". (Here Deathrocker claims that my Statement is 'Bullshit' and that by making personal attacks at me and trying to have me banned he is 'helping' Wikipedia)

• "An apology which after the latest onslaught by Leyasu". (Here Deathrocker claims by statement is an Onslaught, possibly another selective choice of words to infer a personal attack)

• "I suggest whoever is looking at the case actually read the full conversation". (Here Deathrocker openly attacks the Abrittion Committe again, infering that there is a cabal against him)

• "Regarding Leyasu's false claim that I was once "up for permanent ban". (Deathrocker again claims this isnt true even though both myself and Sceptre have provided diffs for this in our statements)

• "Most of this is irrelevent to the case, and seems to be an attempt at a few cheap stabs". (Here Deathrocker claims that my statement is 'irrelevant' and is nothing but 'a few cheap stabs')

After this Sceptre warned Deatrocker for being uncivil [151], however Deathrocker does not appear to care, continuing defacing my Statement and making Personal Attacks, [152] [153], including:

• "Grow up, stop trying to cause trouble". (Here Deathrocker explicitly states i am a child and my statement is an 'attempt' to cause trouble)

• "Lie #6: This an admittance by Leyasu that he was indeed the sockpuppet that I reported". (Here Deathrocker claims i am a liar, and that i am a sockpuppet even though he has refused to do a RFCU)

• "Leyasu attempted to Vandalise this article, removing information I had wrote in an attempt to cover up the refutal of his lies". (This is because i removed his comments from my statement based on Tonys advice as an admin. Deahtrocker chose then to deface my statement leading to his warning by Sceptre)

• "Leyasu then childishly (yes childishly, right a novel about it, I don't care, you're acting like a child)". (Here Deathrocker explicity makes a personal attack calling me a child, and then makes further uncivil remarks despite being warner by Sceptre).

• "The word "truth" is an entirely foreign concept to Leyasu". (Deathrocker deliberatly makes the personal attack that i do not know the meaning of the word Truth)

• "Until Leyasu starts acting civily and stops Personally attacking me, they are in violation of their parole'". (Here Deathrocker explicitly claims that by making a statement i am violating my parole)

• "Although this case is ridiculous and indeed against wikipedia policy". (Deathrocker attacking the arbirrition case and Wikilawyering again)

• "Leyasu is just attepting to maliciously cause trouble with things like this now". (Deathrocker again claiming my statement is a personal attack)

• "Grow up, stop trying to cause trouble". (Deathrocker telling me to 'grow up' and remove my statement from the Abirittion Case)

• "its been made pretty obvious Leyasu's intentions (to stir trouble, the assumption of bad faith)" (Deathrocker again calling my statement a personal attack, despite having been warned by Sceptre for uncivlity and personal attacks)

After this Deathrocker then proceeded to again make more personal attacks, [154] [155]:

• "Perhaps if Sceptre had done his job correctly and went through the correct paths" (Deathrocker here attacks Sceptre for being an admin and filing the RFA)

• "Leyasu attempted to Vandalise this article, (blanking is indeed vandalism) removing information I had wrote without my permission". (Deahtrocker here claims it is ok for him to deface others statements and that Admins and other users have to have 'his permission' to edit the board)

• "I'm tired of having to reveal the truth, fending off each attack agaisnt myself by the user, it is getting very boring". (Here Deathrocker claims that im 'a liar' and claims again my statement is a personal attack)

Deathrocker has made continious personal attacks using the RFA board, as shown in this edit [156]:

• "As recent as today; Leyasu bit a noob". [I provided the user with a final warning http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:220.239.75.26&diff=prev&oldid=51179164], who has used several sock puppets to violate WP:33R and vandalise my talk page. The user was also warned by two admins and other members of the WP:HMM project and has had the policys clearly stated to them. The user is also going through an RFCU to check if this account is Deathrocker, due to Deathrocker's use of sockpuppets to bait me before)

• "The anon doesn't vandalise at all as you can see, though a personal attack was made against them by Leyasu, who labeled them as a vandal". (After being shown a sockpuppet of User:Mike5193 who has had two admin warnings, had several sock puppets blocked, and has vandalised my user page and the user pages of other users in WP:HMM, this was vandalism)

• "The user is allowed to get away with such violations and uses the fact that they are on ArbCom parole as an excuse" (I have not done anything to get away with, considering the user is a known sockpuppet of a known vandal)

• "'How such violations are allowed to happen, after the user has violated there parole 5 times is a mystery". (Deathrocker here again demands my statement is annulled on the basis i am on Parole. This has been a recurring theme with Deahtrockers threats to have me banned one way or another)

Statement by Idont Havaname

As you probably recall, I was a party in Leyasu's arbcom case. I'm not sure if I should be one in this case or not, but I do recall a lot of the interactions and difficulties that Leyasu and Deathrocker have had here. I'm assuming that since the others have posted rather lengthy statements here, they've included most of the diffs for the comments that I'll be discussing. So I'll just post my thoughts.

First, several things I've noticed since the Leyasu/Danteferno case:

• Leyasu has still been calling good-faith edits and edits by non-admins "vandalism" and seems to have a shaky understanding of what vandalism is or is not.
• Leyasu has broken revert parole at least 6 times for which he has been punished, plus I think at least one time for which he was not punished (through an anon which was "highly likely" to be him, per the CheckUser).
• To his credit, the most recent block caused Leyasu to take better steps at preventing another violation of his revert parole.
• The most recent block for Leyasu was for a week. Leyasu (probably) used anons to evade the block once and continue reverting, as the CheckUser results stated.
• Enter Deathrocker. Both Leyasu and Deathrocker had set up user subpages that were not linked to their user pages and that were essentially ready-made to post to RFAR evidence pages. These are still up at User:Deathrocker/BringingDownTheShrine and User:Leyasu/Deathrocker. Leyasu had a similar page for Gothic Hero (talk · contribs) at User:Leyasu/Evidence of Gothic Hero's Suck Puppetry. After Leyasu's April 20 block and Deathrocker's March 20 block concluded, Deathrocker started personally attacking Leyasu and using Leyasu's arbcom decision against him. There was some incivility on both sides, mainly Deathrocker's.
• However, Leyasu has made efforts to prevent himself from violating 1RR since then, which gives me a more favorable impression of him, just as it has for Tony Sidaway.
• Danteferno has only made less than 50 edits since the first arbcom case concluded. Most of his edits have been directly or indirectly related to Leyasu, and in this diff [157], he says that Leyasu should have been banned rather than blocked. Hopefully, the case hasn't caused Danteferno to lose interest in Wikipedia, since he did do some good work before he got tangled up in revert wars with Leyasu and others, as were addressed in the last arbcom case.

Having seen a general lack of enforcement of the 1RR in Leyasu's case, I've been watching Leyasu and Danteferno (talk · contribs) following the case to try to make sure that their revert paroles were enforced properly, by reporting them at ANI and AE when necessary. (Although, I haven't been placing the blocks myself to try to avoid conflict of interest.) I remember noticing last month that Deathrocker had received a one-month block and thinking that that seemed harsh. However, since Deathrocker came back from his block, I've noticed that he's been little more than a thorn in the side of Leyasu. This became especially apparent when I've been watching WP:AE, a very underwatched (by admins) page given the serious need for arbcom decisions to be enforced (and the fact that WP:AE is the place to report violations of those decisions). Granted, I haven't seen a basis in fact for all of what Leyasu has told Deathrocker (e.g. the mention that a motion to permanently ban Deathrocker was in place), but even in Deathrocker's WP:AE posting, Deathrocker made personal attacks against Leyasu, after a warning against incivility following his nasty second comment to Leyasu on AN/I.

We already have rulings to hold Leyasu in check, and although they haven't worked as well as we would like them to (given the block log) at least they are there. However, since the first case against Deathrocker was rejected, we have no formal measures from the ArbCom to hold Deathrocker's behavior in check; and we definitely do need them - especially since Deathrocker has been openly bragging about the ruling against Leyasu. I strongly recommend hearing this case to analyze the changes in both users' behavior since Leyasu's case and to put some ruling on Deathrocker.

--Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Please show me diffs of where I have been "openly braging" about Leyasu's 1RR?... this is the kind of thing that angers me, actually READ the diffs where Leyasu is claiming such a thing and you'll see that nowhere am I "bragging that Leyasu is on 1RR" its a cheap trick, and you don't seem to have bothered to view the diff... I'm challenging you on that basis, please show me ANY evidence of me bragging about that.

Also the post on AE, which was suggested I do by another user, was posted (16:59, 29 April 2006) BEFORE any message from Sceptre on the Incidents board (21:06, 29 April 2006), check the times instead of just taking Leyasu's word for it. Regardless of the fact that Leyasu personally attacked me on the incidents board... he was not warned, which further goes to show the (admitted) bias of Sceptre. The case is in clear violation of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, so its heresay anyway. - Deathrocker 04:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I interpreted edits like this one [158] as bragging that you (Deathrocker) were not on 1RR, whereas Leyasu was ("although you are on your final warning from your ArbCon parole after breaking it 5 times"). At minimum, there was a lot of incivility in that edit. Several other comments from Deathrocker, most of which were brought up by Leyasu, from WP:AE and WP:AN/I showed the same sort of incivility and personal attacks, such as this personal attack through an edit summary, using a "vandal" template twice in conjunction with Leyasu, and this incivil comment about incivility. Your edit suggesting "pulling the plug" on Leyasu may have violated WP:CIVIL as well, since for one thing there had been no CheckUser to see if the anon was Leyasu, and for another, calling for blocks and bans violates WP:CIVIL. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarification (hopefully): Asking for a routine block for a clearly blockable offense (repeated obvious vandalism such as "I JUST HAX0RED YOUR SIGHT!!! LOL", 3RR violations, arbcom ruling violations, etc.) is one thing. Requesting admins to "pull the plug" on a user with whom you've been arguing is a different matter, since that kind of language implies, "I don't like this user, so once he does something out of line, I want you to indefinitely block him." See WP:CIVIL#Examples for more examples of incivility. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Again you are "implying" how about work on the basis of things I've actually said for once?... if you call me out for something I've actually said then I'd gladly discuss it. But you're expecting me to defend a point of view in which the comment wasn't said in the first place, that is impossible.. instead of trying to pull me up, on your "interpretations"/spin.... stick to bare faced, black and white fact of what it says please.... If I wanted to say what you implied I would have straight out said it bluntly, alas..

When I said "pull the plug" if you look. It was when I was reporting a suspected sock (correct?)... suggesting that it may be time for an admin "pull the plug" on a sock, to stop the vandalism in proccess (yes vandalism, if you look here [159], that is the suspected sock vandalising, which you pointed out here; [160])... at the time I said those exact words, Leyasu was already blocked for warring with other users... there was no "plug to pull" at that time apart from the sock. Unless you are saying its OK to use socks?

What this says to me is if I see somebody using socks, or vandalising Wikipedia, then theres no point in reporting it, if this is the BS I get for my efforts to help. - Deathrocker 12:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a diff for the claim of me making any personal attack at you on the ANI board. Ley Shade 05:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Gladly, here we are, [161]

Personal Attack #1 When referring to a content dispute we had from over a month ago, (Which had no relevence to what I was reporting) you claimed I vandalised an article (you have been told, hundreds of times that content disputes are not vandalism, and are not to be marked as so) I believe that is even part of your parole.

I was told that if its debatable as vandalism, it isnt typically considered vandalism. Since then i have been talking to Tony concerning parts of the policy i have been confused on, and how best to deal with those situations.

Personal Attack #2 You claimed I was banned from an article (Gothic Metal) and violating a ban on it, which is a deception and an untruth.

If you werent then thats my mistake, as i had assumed that you had been banned from the article after your one month block.

Personal Attack #3 You claimed I had vandalised your page over a month ago, you were suspected of using a sock at the time by another user, and the tag was showing that... that is not "vandalism", that is a "content dispute", as you disputed whether it should be on or not... you may actually want to look up what "vandalism" means first and not violate the terms of your parole, which clearly states content disputes are not vandalism.

The tag was added by yourself. The tag was also removed by Admin Sceptre. You also offered no proof for the accusation and refused to perform RFCU. You also expressed what seemed to be the reason for the tag as a means to slander and deform my userpage.

Personal Attack #4 You claimed I was currently pending "permanent ban" something which you still continue to do on this talk page, even 10 minutes ago, this has NEVER been the case, even a month ago where a case for Arb against myself was rejected, mark this one down as another deception.

This wasnt a decption when im repeating what Sceptre has in his ArbCom statement, and what was discussed on the ANI board during the time you were blocked.

Personal Attack #5 You claimed that I had been banned for "impersonating you before"... this is another blatant untruth... not only have I never impersonated you, I have also never been "warned or banned" for such a thing as you claim, clear deception.

Please provide a diff for when i claimed you wered banned for impersonating me. I noted you have been suspected multiple times for using anons to impersonate me, and that i thought you had been warned for it, but i do not recall mentioning anything about you being banned for it. Again, please provide actuall diffs where i have made these edits. Ley Shade 07:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That's five personal attacks clearly pointed out in your post on the incidents board, you are welcome.- Deathrocker 05:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I interpreted edits like this one [143] as bragging that you (Deathrocker) were not on 1RR, whereas Leyasu was ("although you are on your final warning from your ArbCon parole after breaking it 5 times").

In what sense is that bragging?... it doesn't even mention Leyasu been on 1RR basis, or that I'm not. It factually states that Leyasu is on their final warning from ArbCom parole (Which has numerous conditions not just the 1RR basis) after breaking it five time (that is factually correct, am I right?), in reply to a comment that Leyasu falsely claimed that I was been considered for a "permanent ban"... there is no sense of "brag" in the comment... as you can see I don't even mention his 1RR condition at all, so to "presume" I'm bragging about that, when I didn't even mention it in the first place, is quite a gigantic strech. - Deathrocker 06:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The diff shows you specifically making the comment "although you are on your final warning from your ArbCon parole after breaking it 5 times". My arbcom parole is my 1RR, so to now say that you never mentioned it is folly. Ley Shade 07:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The conditions of your ArbCom parole are vast, the 1RR is a small part of it true, but if you actually read [162].... part of it is also... you are on personal attacks parole... it specifies in the case that, edit warring is harmful, that you have to start citing sources, it also tells you what vandalism is not and shouldn't be labelled as, also warns you that you shouldn't attempt to "own" articles on Wikipedia, etc...

That far outstretches just the 1RR part of it... the comment was a reply to your untruth where you claimed "I was nearly permanently banned"... it served to show, that according to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu in the block log part at the bottom, that it is actually you who are approaching long-time/permanent ban for violating ArbCom.

That is factual. The concept of “bragging” doesn’t come into it, if I felt the need to address the 1RR part of it then I would have said so, but simply I never even made mention of "1RR". Again... asume good faith. - Deathrocker 08:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My arbcom Parole only says that im on Personal Attack Parole and 1 Revert Parole. That means that either way you were bragging because im on parole and you are not.

Please provide a diff for it saying im 'Owning' articles.

It also says that my next ban is legibable for one year. Please explain to me how a one year ban is a permenant ban from Wikipedia. Also please remember telling other users to assume good faith when you are the one being warned for Incivility could be counted as a personal attack, and i ask you to refrain from making them any further. Ley Shade 09:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Again your favourite hobby taking my words out of context... here in your Arb case it tells you that you do not own Wikipedia articles Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Leyasu#Consensus_and_ownership_of_articles You're welcome...

Perhaps if you actually took the time to read the entire Arb case terms against yourself, maybe you wouldn't violate it so much?

There was still no "bragging" either... it isn't my responsibility if you have an inability to stick to the terms of paroles and other set out terms, that are stated in the link provided. That is down to you and you alone.

Asking you to "assume good faith" when you are attacking me... is a "personal attack"? Wow, thats a pretty warped perspective and you wonder why some users have had a hard time working with you.

I've already to asked you to desist with lies against myself over a month ago... yet you continue on this very page numerous times, that is not an assumption of "good faith" by any stretch of the imagination on your part. Perhaps you should actually read what a "personal attack" is, before think about posting untruths about myself in future? kthanks - Deathrocker 12:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply to claims by Leyasu Pt.1

This is regarding untruths [163]... the rest of Leyasu's claims were already found to be false in the last ArbCom case.

Regarding the first comment in that section

There is simply too much falsification to deal with at once in this comment, but I'll stick to the last part...

A check user result showed that you were "highly likely" of using socks [164] by user:Jayjg.. fact. The current ones that I reported "suspecting" they were your socks had very similar IP's to the ones you were found "highly likely" of using... though the latest one that this debate is centered around hasn't been checked yet, perhaps it should.

Second, the only person I have seen say I'm "under suspicion for using anons to impersonate" you... is guess who? YOU. I don't have the time or the patience to mess around impersonating of all people you, I have no need or desire to... it is a ridiculous claim on your part, and one that is of course false. - Deathrocker 09:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply to claims by Leyasu, Pt 2

• sigh* sad, sad, sad.

This whole episode with you is becoming very childish... after you made an apology I thought you'd actually stick by your word... I guess I was wrong to presume you would.

Lets review shall we....

Yes, you apologised and I accepted your apology... I thought some head way would be made from that..

But then you come straight back here... selectively quote lines from a reply I made to user:Idont_Havaname [165].. NOT you... I know you can read so, that shouldn't be too hard to figure out, yet somehow you claim that I'm "attacking" you??.... when I was even talking to you?.... you don't see how that is utterly ridiculous??

Just to clarify for anybody still keeping up with this sham of a case, that is still in violation of Wikipedia policies...

As already stated the bulk of what Leyasu was trying to "attack" me on was a reply to user:Idont_Havaname, where I was trying to clarify a few issues, as can be seen here [166]... whether this was a genuine confusion by Leyasu, thinking I was addressing him or a "grasp at straws" attempt to get something against me, I do not know... I'll assume good faith and reserve judgement on that count.

As you can see if you read that link.. the BS comment was in relation to all o this that has happened from me trying to HELP Wikipedia by reporting a suspected sock, I stated in future, that this tells me not to bother as "this is the BS I get for my efforts to help".

The second part; "Again your favourite hobby taking my words out of context" and "it isn't my responsibility if you have an inability to stick to the terms of paroles" is a very selective two part quote of "There was still no "bragging" either... it isn't my responsibility if you have an inability to stick to the terms of paroles and other set out terms, that are stated in the link provided. That is down to you and you alone."

Which was in regards to Leyasu's breaking of parole 5 times... saying how it isn't my responsibility to make sure he doesn't break it. Keep in mind this was made BEFORE, I'd read and replied to Leyasu's apology, accepting it.

An apology which after the latest onslaught by Leyasu, doesn't seem to have had any conviction behind it now. Also regarding to the last part, I suggest whoever is looking at the case actually read the full conversation, not just the selective quoting from Leyasu, as I suggested that perhaps Leyasu and Sceptre were confused, regarding Leyasu's false claim that I was once "up for permanent ban"... which is a flase claim, again most of this is irrelevent to the case, and seems to be an attempt at a few cheap stabs.

Perhaps if Sceptre had done his job correctly and went through the correct paths (IE - Meditation, or made an effort to disucss whatever issues he has first) before creating this violative case, all this wouldn't have happened? - Deathrocker 14:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Attempt by Leyasu to vandalise Arbitration board

Leyasu attempted to Vandalise this article, (blanking is indeed vandalism) removing information I had wrote without my permission, in an attempt to cover up the correction of his lies [167]... (they've now been re-added)

Leyasu then childishly (yes childishly, right a novel about it, I don't care, you're acting like a child), after I have attempted to act with good faith (which believe me, when dealing with this user takes one hell of an effort). This user has tested my patience and I no longer have any for him, baiting me with ridiculous comnments twisting more statements I made, diliberately and made yet more false claims the word "truth" is an entirely foreign concept to Leyasu.

I will now disect each lie, until Leyasu starts acting civily and stops Personally attacking me, they are in violation of their parole... I've tried assuming good faith, as I said, this user refuses to do the same...

Lie #1 After removing Deathrockers comments from my Statement to his own, Deathrocker replaced them [168] as an attempt to bait me into violating my parole as noted already by Tony.

Leyasu vandalised the article that is true as you can see here [169]though there are no diffs to show me "attempting to bait" this user into violating parole, this is a personal attack against myself to claim so... Tony also made no comment.

Lie #2 "This whole episode with you is becoming very childish. (Deathrocker made this comment even though myself and three admins have put in statements against Deathrocker).

Three admins haven't put in statements "against" myself at all.. three admins have made statements, Idont_Havaname's seems somewhat neautral although needed some things clairfying, Tony's doesn't mention me... so that leaves Sceptre and Leyasu, surprise, surprise.

Lie #3 "'you don't see how that is utterly ridiculous?? ". (Deathrocker has made claim about the arbirittion case being null several times, this one denoting the case as ridiculous)

Although this case is ridiculous and indeed against wikipedia policy, that isn't what the comment was in regards to... the comment was in regards to Leyasu, claiming I had personally attacked him when I wasn't even addressed him at the time... I stated how he doesn't see "how that is utterly ridiculous"...read this in reply Pt. 2. Leyasu is well aware of exactly what this was refering to , and is just attepting to maliciously cause trouble with things like this now.

Lie #4 "Just to clarify for anybody still keeping up with this sham of a case, that is still in violation of Wikipedia policies". (Here Deathrocker openly branches his personal attacks out to include the arbirrition committe)

Grow up, stop trying to cause trouble. No personal attack is made against anybody (that is blatantly clear)... the case is a sham because it is in violation of Wikipedia policies. Nobody on the arbitration commity was even mentioned... you are well aware of this, and just attempting to stir trouble claiming I'm attacking people that I've not even made mention of. You've been told to assume good faith by admins, yet you contiune not to. Creating slander against myself.

Lie #5 "Regarding Leyasu's false claim that I was once "up for permanent ban". (Deathrocker again claims this isnt true even though both myself and Sceptre have provided diffs for this in our statements)

After been warned by an Admin for lying about this on this very page, Leyasu persists with a false claim... there are no diffs to show that I was "up for permanent ban" ever, because I simply never was, something the other admins in this case are aware of... read the last ArbCom case, it makes no mention of such thing.... again more malicious lies by Leyasu. Which he has already been warned about fasely claiming.

Lie #6 the BS comment was in relation to all o this that has happened from me trying to HELP Wikipedia". (Here Deathrocker claims that my Statement is 'Bullshit' and that by making personal attacks at me and trying to have me banned he is 'helping' Wikipedia)

This was CLEARLY in regards to this comment; "What this says to me is if I see somebody using socks, or vandalising Wikipedia, then theres no point in reporting it, if this is the BS I get for my efforts to help." which was a discussion with Idont_Havaname [170]

Again Leyasu is all too aware of this, and knows exactly what he is doing. The comment I made to Idont_Havaname was regading a sockpuppet, and Leyasu claims that "trying to have me banned he is 'helping' Wikipedia"... is this an admittance by Leyasu that he was indeed the sockpuppet that I reported?... it seems like that is what he is admitting with that comment.

I could go onto disect the others but I think its been made pretty obvious Leyasu's intentions (to stir trouble, the assumption of bad faith... after I assumed good faith with him, persistant personal attacks against myself, slander and defemation of character) Leyasu will most likely return and twist great sections of this in a moment (as has been seen multiple times here already)... wait and see. - Deathrocker 18:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Update

After (not before as Leyasu fasely states) my last edit on here, Sceptre then to leave a message on my page... but not on Leyasu's page, to which I questioned him [171]...yet Sceptre failed to reply adaquetly... though this was indeed AFTER I'd made my last edit on here.

Though I had noticed that Leyasu left an obscene message on Sceptre's page, a couple of hours before mine, Leyasu threated to "tell him to go F**k Himself" [172]... which I find totally unacceptable behvaiour.

I don't think theres any need to address Leyasu's latest edits on here... as you can see what the intent seemingly is of them after I disected the others here. This section seems to be a target, as Leyasu has moved it twice and blanked parts once. [173]

I'm tired of having to reveal the truth, fending off each attack agaisnt myself by the user, it is getting very boring and makes one jaded.

Thanks - Deathrocker 05:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't just me who Leyasu has assumed bad faith with and attacked claiming content disputes as vandalism.. as recent as today; Leyasu bit a noob [174] made a threat to ban them for vandalism [175].. even though he isn't even an admin, when the the post history of the n00b is checked, it showed they had only one edit on the Children of Bodom article, which Leyasu is known to be in disputes with numerous editors in regards to content, check the articles history... the noobs only post was; [176] ... the anon doesn't vandalise at all as you can see, though a personal attack was made against them by Leyasu, who labeled them as a "vandal". [177]

The user is allowed to get away with such violations and uses the fact that they are on ArbCom parole as an excuse, when violating often claims other users are "baiting" him. When that never seems to be the case... how such violations are allowed to happen, after the user has violated there parole 5 times is a mystery. Explinations as to why this is allowed to happen are welcome. - Deathrocker 18:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

* "As recent as today; Leyasu bit a noob". [I provided the user with a final warning http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:220.239.75.26&diff=prev&oldid=51179164], who has used several sock puppets to violate WP:33R and vandalise my talk page. The user was also warned by two admins and other members of the WP:HMM project and has had the policys clearly stated to them. The user is also going through an RFCU to check if this account is Deathrocker, due to Deathrocker's use of sockpuppets to bait me before)

Here Leyasu claims the noob has vandalised talkpages before, even though if you check its history this was the anons first edit.... a clear attempt by Leyasu to worm his way out of a personal attack and biting a random noob.

Leyasu has a past of claiming other editors on Wikipedia are me, after disputing with them, he once claimed Danterferno was me (even though we don't even share the same interests and he has messaged me months before Leyasu claimed such a thing).... it was found out that myself and Danterferno are not the same person.

After Leyasu's current attack at an anon, he is now claiming on the sockpuppets board, that I'm not only Mike but the anons too... he can't make his mind up.

Leyasu then went on to break the law and Wikipedia policies by commiting Slander against myself. [178], to which I notified an admin for assistance as this is one step too far.

Leyasu also went on to personally attack me claiming that I'd used anons to bait him in the past.... check the history on the sock puppets board... you will see out of the two of us, only Leyasu has been found guilty of using sock puppets to attack users and edit while blocked [179]. The user has once again attacked me on an administrators page, using the words "go f**k himself" [180] again, unacceptable. Why admins are not doing anything about that is a mystery. - Deathrocker 08:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Temporary action taken by Sceptre

I've blocked both users for 72 hours for constantly bickering on my talk page. If possible, the block should be lifted once the case has either been delisted or opened. (Deathrocker's sockpuppet has been blocked as I allowed it to make a statement in the older RfAr) Will (^E_@) T 10:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Sceptre's revert

The incident THIS case is about happened on 03:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC),[181] the RfC is from 20:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC), [182].

You are attempting to pretend this is from the current case. Which is unacceptable. Nice try though. - Deathrocker 09:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was responsible for putting the RfC (which I notice was not certified) into the case, when I opened it. I apologise if this was an error. I suggest that anyone who thinks it may be of relevance to the current case submit it on the evidence page. --Tony Sidaway 12:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I said it was delisted, should've put uncertified. Will (^E_@) T 18:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, right. How come you moved mine and Leyasu's statements to this page? Instead of them been on the main case page? - Deathrocker 13:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved them here because they were very, very long. I do think it would be valuable if you could each write a very brief summary (200 words is an excellent size) and place it on the case page. I could not write a summary of your statements myself, as I sometimes do as a clerk, because I have recused from the case. --Tony Sidaway 13:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

2 questions about evidence

1. Leyasu is currently serving a 1-month block. How should we go about having him post any new evidence he has? (I'm not sure if he has any or not.)

2. I will probably have more evidence to post, and I will have suggestions to make in the Workshop. However, I've been very busy during the time since this case opened. My schedule will probably open up considerably by Tuesday. Could we have a few more days to post evidence before the Voting stage starts?

--Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I've finished posting the evidence. I went ahead and posted it in Findings of Fact since I think I could keep it concise and detailed (and I felt that the Leyasu arbitration case did not have enough findings of fact). There's probably too much there, so you can just take whichever ones you find useful, trim them down as necessary, etc. Similarly, I've posted a bunch of proposed principles for this case in the workshop. Sorry for the delay; I've been sick for a few days. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu might be evading his block again.

Just in case I'm not talking to a wall on this page:

In this edit, an anonymous IP from a range that Leyasu has typically been using signed one of its earlier posts as Leyasu. Although this IP has not made edits that would break Leyasu's revert parole, editing while blocked still defeats the purpose of a block. We do need further findings of fact and possibly more remedies in this case with regards to block evasion.

--Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible 3RR Breach by User:Deathrocker

!Admin Intervention Requested!

I don't know what the status of this ArbCom action is or all the details, but it would seem that Deathrocker has been using the excuse and accusation that the article banned User:Leyasu has been editing the Iron Maiden article to revert more than he should be over a content dispute involving the number of genres in the User box.

The different viewpoints on the content dispute are highlighted below:

• Someone who is claimed to be User:Leyasu (By User:Deathrocker) disagrees that Iron Maiden should have New Wave of British Metal listed as a genre in the summary box.
• User:Deathrocker disagrees and claims incorrectly that he has the consensus of people discussing this issue on the talk page (User:156.34.142.158 is in support of Deathrocker, but with similar reversions to Deathrocker Metal on various metal related articles, the possibility of it simply being Deathrocker logged out is there).
• I claim that the genre box looks messy with multiple genres listed and claim consensus on the basis that when Iron Maiden went through WP:FAC, the summary box not holding New Wave as a genre when the New Wave is talked about in the article was not highlighted as something that was a problem. (Where as it would have been brought up if it was a problem). User:Prodigenous_Zee supports this point of view on the talk page, which also makes a consensus of registered editors.

I will highlight the reverts involved in the dispute below:

---

1st Revert: User:Deathrocker Reverts the genre changes by 70.81.195.190;
Time: Revision as of 16:25, 16 June 2006;
Reason Given: none;
Comment: The revert is an assumed content dispute with the user: no reason was given. There doesn't seem to be an indicator that the change was made;
Changes URL: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iron_Maiden&diff=58963272&oldid=58963008]

---

User:Blightsoot removes all genres from the summary box but British Heavy Metal and justifies it on Talk:Iron Maiden

---

2nd Revert: User:Deathrocker Reverts the genre changes by 81.157.83.1
Time: Revision as of 18:56, 16 June 2006
Reason Given: removing blocked users edit.;
Comment: There is no way to verify a blocked user was editing the article. The first revert IP was completely unrelated to this IP though, so there is no way to conclusively suggest the first reverted IP was a blocked user, on the basis of the reason given for the second revert. Deathrocker also insinuates I'm blocked user by reverting my edits.
Changes URL: [183]

---

3rd Revert: User:Deathrocker Reverts 156.34.142.158's decision to revert the 2nd reversion.
Time: Revision as of 19:12, 16 June 2006
Reason Given: kept brief heavy metal in opening, but added other more specifics to which they belong in info box;
Comment: A clear content reversion.
Changes URL: [184]

---

4th Revert: User:Deathrocker Reverts the genre changes by 81.157.83.1
Time: Revision as of 20:21, 16 June 2006
Reason Given: removing blocked users edit.;
Comment: The same user reverted as the 2nd revert. However, it also reverts changes I've made again, making it a valid content reversion.
Changes URL: [185]

---

5th Revert: User:Deathrocker Reverts the genre changes by Blightsoot
Time: Revision as of 00:26, 17 June 2006
Reason Given: adding a source.;
Comment: A clear content reversion.
Changes URL: [186]

---

Although removing banned users edits (With the evidence that it is a banned user) is justified under policy, using it as an excuse to remove the edits of others makes at least 4 of these reverts over the limit given by WP:3RR. Even proving that 81.157.83.1 is the banned User:Leyasu (It is suggested by User:Andy5190 that it is a sock here), doesn't give the excuse of reverting my changes under the same reasoning (As in revert 2) as well.

As at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR, but hopefully to more avail, I request an admin to look into this.

Thank you. Agent Blightsoot 21:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply

The WP:3RR was not violated , and was respected by myself. The anon who's message I removed (various other users removed his edits too on the articles that hes indefinetly banned on) twice was previously found to be Leyasu [187] a user who is indeffinetly banned from editing Iron Maiden (check the talkpage of that article its at the top) but is also currently banned for 3 months,[188]. Recently Leyasu has had several sock puppets including anonymous IP's blocked by admins user: Tony Sidaway and user:Idont Havaname,[189] (For Blightsoot who may be unaware of this) no violation was breached, as it states in WP:3RR clearly that removing edits by blocked users who are evading a block with anons or socks to edit, is an exception and isn't counted towards 3RR. To quote WP:3RR]

"For the purposes of counting reverts, these are excluded:

• removing posts made by a banned or blocked user"

Blightsoot stepped in and decided to paint himself into Leyasu's corner, in which later he removed sourced info. Concenus was held by myself on the talkpage, as User:156.34.142.158 (The user is not me, feel free to checkuser, its not my style) agreed with my version on the talkpage of the article along with Zee who was the one removing the banned users edits in the first place. [190][191]. Despite the fact that I had concencus in regards to the genre debate and had sourced my edit. [192]. Blightsoot claimed that although nobody was voicing support for his version (apart froma blocked user) that because the article went through WP:FAC he had consenus, regardless of the fact that the WP:FAC was to do with the article becoming featured not a genre debate at all.

The second link which Blightshoot claims to be a revert, isn't a revert at all, [193] It imploments elements of two entirely different versions, not a revert. I don't know if Blightshoot has the ability to count, but altogether (excludings removals of blocked users edits per WP:3RR) only one actual revert was made by myself in 24 hours on that article, and it was this one,[194] of his version.

Now thats cleared up. Blightsoot the use of horizontal lines is supposed to be done sparingly... this article is now a major eyesore due to your over-doing of it. Perhaps tone them down a little? Thanks! - Deathrocker 23:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I love the blatant misinterpretations, incivility and complete irrelevant idiocy of the above post. Here's this extract from WP:3RR:

“ Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. ”

I'm fully aware that some of the reverts were on the claim that a user is banned (I said as much in my above post.), however, you also reverted my changes fully in the same revert (I'm not a banned user). You cannot revert a banned user in one edit, and then get away with a free revert of other peoples edits in the same edit.

Seen as I can't count, lets all count together. The 1st revert is a revert as its a total rollback of the users edit. There's no indication that that is User:Leyasu at all, where this might be the case with some other IP's. It isn't even listed as suspicious or a sock of him and seems to be completely unrelated.

The 2nd revert is a revert, and you said as much yourself in the edit summary:

“ removing blocked users edit.; ”

You removed the banned users edit, fair enough. But you removed mine as well so it counts on the revert tally.

The 3rd revert is the same as the 1st. This time its an anon ip who seems to agree with my logical reasoning on the talk page. Nothing to do with User:Leyasu on the face of things. Thus, it also counts to the tally. That's 3 reverts now, wow look it me go I can count!. Its a revert because you reverted my decision to edit the genre box to contain only one genre.

4th revert. Banned user with suspicious activity. Acceptable revert.

5th revert, a clear revert of my edits and that's completely undeniable. That adds up to 56 12 -123 4 reverts over content disputes, not including banned users. The evidence is there in the "eyesore" for everyone to see. (I do know that horizontal lines should be used sparingly, but I can't count and thought I only used one in the entire post).

Lastly on removing a "sourced" edit. I have not and never have denied Iron Maiden came out of the New Wave of British Heavy Metal (It would be strange of me to deny it when I've been talking about the section on it in the article!). Once again you've completely ignored my real argument, which I'll know present in idiot proof terms for you to understand:

• Multiple genres in what is supposed to be a summary of the group are not needed when the New Wave is talked about later in the article
• The rest of Wikipedia didn't deem it necessary to put New Wave as a genre when considering if there are any problems with the article to prevent it becoming Featured. If this was a problem of any sort, it would have been highlighted with objections or minor objections. I clearly remember none at the time. This de facto indicates support for one genre in the box as the flooding of the box would have been grounds for some people to object to the featured nomination.
• New Wave is only listed as something linked to Iron Maiden's past in the majority of the modern (Non New Wave specific) general media. Due to importance, its appearance in a basic summary of Iron Maiden is not warranted.

ps - Zee did not agree with you on the talk page as you have said. His response to my edit was:

“ I'm certainly happy. Good work. :) ”

Unless I'm mistaken that sounds like he doesn't support your edit. Agent Blightsoot 13:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly you clearly post a personal attack against me in your reply, after you were corrected claiming there is "idiocy" (which there clearly isn't) in the reply, because you were proven wrong with diffs. You have been requested to be civil before while debating, it is in accordance to Wikipedia policy, please learn how to follow it, thanks...

1. I've clearly shown with diffs that two of the reverts I made were the removal of versions by a blocked user, this is in acordance with Wikipedia policy as per: WP:3RR As I've shown clearly. To deny so, would be a form "idiocy".

2. It would seem as well as problems regarding to civilty, you also problems keeping count of reverts or telling the time in regards to the article, in question. You claim 5 reverts in 24 hours? HA!

OK, lets try and help you out a little shall we?....

• [195] is the removal of an edit by a blocked user; which is an exception acording to WP:3RR
• [196] is the removal of an edit by a blocked user; which is an exception acording to WP:3RR
• [197] adding information; there is no revert of material you had added to the article, such as "heavy metal" in the opening line, this is clearly marked as an addition in the edit summary, not a revert.
• After providing around 30 sources on the talkpage, and gaining concensus, I added a source, reverting your edit. [198]

The above is in the space of 24 hours, that is one partial revert after sourcing over 30 times on the talkpage, that is not a violation of WP:3RR.

As previously shown with diffs I had consensus; Tawker removed a version by Leyasu using an anon (which you support)[199] as did Zee [[200][201] and another user agreed with me on the talk page, as shown in the initial reply. Thats 3-0 consensus to my count (Leyasu's is null and void as he can't edit the article while blocked without violating blocking policy), now, you have been corrected here. And your reverts of our version are petty in the first place, as on the talkpage you have even said yourself the band are "NWOBHM"... so you are basically reverting sourced information, which you fully agree is correct, for seemingly no reason at all? Yeah, thats a stroke a genius. - Deathrocker 14:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker's right; since he was reverting edits by a blocked user, which is supported by WP:BLOCK and WP:3RR, he was not violating 3RR. I'm quite willing to believe that 81.157.83.1 is a sockpuppet of Leyasu, based on the fact that WP:SOCK states that sockpuppets are more likely to be familiar with policy than legitimate users are. The contributions from that IP are mainly reverts which cite policy, and they were on pages that Leyasu frequently edits. So assuming that the anon is Leyasu is not a bad-faith assumption; on the contrary, it's probably a correct one. (Also, most of the IPs Leyasu's socks have used have started with 86.*.*.* or 81.*.*.*.) So I think Deathrocker is ok here. In the future, please use WP:AN/I to report these incidents (use WP:AE instead of AN/I AN/3RR after this case closes), rather than this page. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

(WP:AN/I is a more general page for reporting incidents to admins; WP:AN/3RR is specifically for violations of 3RR, so I've changed my comment above to indicate that.) --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This is understandably, hilarious. I am apparently wrong, so I'll have to ask a few questions so I don't make this "mistake" again and so Deathrocker's innocence can be clearly and succinctly shown:

• When reverting a banned users edit, is it OK to revert another users edits as well in the same edit and write off the whole thing as a "Banned user" revert? For example, I assumed that after reverting 3 non-Banned users edits which were unrelated (None of which were from the 81.* range) and then reverting my content edits in the same edit as reverting a banned user would add up to 4.
• Does reverting a change in a Summary Box in an article not count as a revert? Deathrocker suggests it is as fact with the words "no revert of material you had added to the article" when 3RR says "undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part." (Note the word actions, not whether content is added to the page)
• Does Zee saying "I'm certainly happy. Good work. :) " to my edits not count as support for my edits? How does his comment show consensus for the Genre changes Deathrocker made?
• Deathrocker says "one partial revert after sourcing over 30 times on the talkpage, that is not a violation of WP:3RR.", but once again the quote of "undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part.". Is a partial revert not "a revert in part"?.
• How is 81.157.83.1 being a sockpuppet of Leyasu, make unrelated edits in support of my edits by 70.81.195.190 and 156.34.142.158 also sockpuppets?
• Is it Ok to get away with calling people uncivil, after someone responds to comments including accusations of not being able to count with the contempt they deserve?

“ I don't know if Blightshoot has the ability to count ”

• Why is a point of view that the summary box should be kept in the style it was at WP:FAC, because it looks overcrowded with multiple genres an incorrect point of view?
• How can Deathrocker argue for a change in the amount of content in a summary box, when that would be a significant change of the articles style and how it looks:

“ In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change......Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; ”

Thanks for anyone's help in advance if they have the time to respond and my apologies to Mr Deathrocker for my insinuation that one of his comments was "idiocy" and the accusation of any wrongdoing. I'll stick to creating reverting vandalism in future. Agent Blightsoot 21:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Does revert parole apply to edits of banned users?

This was a request for clarification on Requests for arbitration. I'm copying it to the Leyasu and Deathrocker arbitrations.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 02:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Leyasu has been indef banned under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker for persistently violating his paroles with sockpuppets. He appears to be continuing to edit music-related articles from a series of British Telecom IP addresses. Deathrocker has been reverting these edits, frequently also using IP addresses rather than logging in. I know that reverting simple vandalism generally does not fall under the one revert per day limit; what about reverting edits from IP addresses suspected of being a banned editor? (Additional current discussion at Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Update I am not at all convinced that the revertions performed by several anon IPs were in fact Deathrocker. However, I still think it would be useful to clarify this issue, even if it is not immediately pressing. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would let whoever is reverting Leyasu continue. I know I don't want that chore. Fred Bauder 14:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Time limit?

Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification. Picaroon (t) 01:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker resulted in Deathrocker, now called Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs), being placed on revert parole. This was violated at least seven times in the following year and resulted in seven separate, logged blocks. Since that time, this user has been blocked twice more, most recently by me for one year as provided by the remedy.

Daddy Kindsoul claims that the revert parole was for one year only and that he is no longer under any sanction. I can find no reference to a time limit in the arbitration case. My question, then, is whether or not the remedies in this specific case were to apply for one year only, were to apply until the user had gone one year without violating the parole, or whether the parole was indefinite. --Yamla 15:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I find no reference in the arbitration decision to any time limitation. There may be other issues relating to this block that are discussed on the user's talkpage in connection with his original unblock request, but they can be addressed at the administrator level if the user wishes to pursue the matter. Newyorkbrad 14:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that? I disagree with the 1 year block for the reason that the original remedy did not provide the escalating clause. (The Enforcement section did =.=) However, I do believe that he is on revert parole indefinitely if a date wasn't mentioned (unless someone willing to clarify this?) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Dmcdevit (who was on the ArbCom at the time of that decision) said that it was probably unlimited duration if a date wasn't mentioned. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)