Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Aug 2024	03 Sep 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	none	26 July 2024
Clarification request: Appeal methods for Lima Bean Farmer topic ban	none	none	12 August 2024
Amendment request: German war effort	Motion	(orig. case)	13 August 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	none	none	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or clerk may do so.

• Arbitration policy
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template
• Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case - Recommended reading: An (unofficial) guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.

Purge the server cache

How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

• Click the "[edit]" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
• Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
• Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
• Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
• Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Request to reopen hearing 'Rex071404_4'

Request for reopening of closed Rex071404_4 RfAr [1], for violation of remedies therein.

Involved parties

Rex071404 (talk · contribs) (a/k/a Merecat (talk · contribs), Anon Texan (talk · contribs), 70.84.56.166 (talk · contribs)

Prior petitioners:

• Mr. Tibbs (talk · contribs)
• JamesMLane (talk · contribs)
• Woohookitty (talk · contribs)
• Derex (talk · contribs)
• Jtdirl (talk · contribs)
• Szyslak (talk · contribs)
• Kizzle (talk · contribs) (involved but not submitting evidence)
• Dmcdevit (talk · contribs)

ArbCom members who accepted the original case:

• Kelly Martin (talk · contribs)
• The Epopt (talk · contribs)
• Mindspillage (talk · contribs)
• Jayjg (talk · contribs)
• Fred Bauder (talk · contribs)

RyanFreisling (talk · contribs) (requesting reopening)

Additional petitioners:

• Kevin Baas (talk · contribs)

Brief summary

As Rex071404 (talk · contribs) (a/k/a Merecat (talk · contribs), Anon Texan (talk · contribs), 70.84.56.166 (talk · contribs)) this editor has been banned from editing John Kerry. In the recent sockpuppet guise of 'Merecat' ([2], [3], [4]) he has violated ArbCom's ban by making 20 separate edits to the article. (URL to diffs is below). In addition Merecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in, and received numerous blocks for) disruptive editing across a number of politically charged articles, and has been the subject of an RfC. Accordingly, I request that the prior hearing be reopened in light of these new violations (using sockpuppets to circumvent a permanent ban, and disruptive editing), and appropriate remedies applied.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[5]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

4 prior ArbCom hearings, most notably this one [6]. One RfC [7].

Statement by party 1

User:Rex071404 has violated his ArbComm permanent ban on article John Kerry.

In direct violation of a prior permanent ban on editing the John Kerry article, Rex071404 (talk · contribs), the subject of 4 prior RfA's, has taken on the sockpuppet ([8], [9]) Merecat (talk · contribs), and in that guise, has willingly violated the ban.

None of his edits to the John Kerry article are disruptive. However, according to the enforcement term of the hearing, Rex has violated the term that permanently banned him from editing the article.

Merecat's edits to the John Kerry article are available here [10].

The Checkuser report for Merecat / Anon Texan / 70.84.56.166 / Rex is here: [11].

In addition, there are numerous examples of trollish techniques (shifting arguments, personal attacks, rhetorical devices, aggressiveness, parrotting, vote stacking, undiscussed article moves, ignoring or deleting talk page requests, deleting other users' comments from article and user talk pages, revert warring, accusations against others of vandalism, 3RR violations, anon avoidance of blocks, etc.) displayed in his edit history that violate the remedy in that same RfAr allowing additional blocks for disruptive editing on other articles. I will provide diffs for that conduct if appropriate, but that conduct is not central to this specific issue.

In light of this specific violation of specific RfAr remedies, I request that his prior ArbCom hearing be reopened, and his behavior assessed against the history, decisions and remedies made there by the ArbCom.

Update: Note that Merecat chose not to directly respond to my question about the likelihood / reasonable conclusion that he is Rex, but instead asked me to use an alternate page and to 'be more specific'. I see this behavior as atypical of one wrongly accused of being a sock of a blocked/banned user. Also, as his post mentions, he is apparently away for a few days, so a lack of an immediate response should not be misconstrued as avoidance of this request to reopen the prior RfAr. In addition, given Tbeatty's comments below representing the POV that none of Merecat's edits were disruptive, I guess I'll have to go further and gather all the specific examples of disruptive behavior as mentioned above for addition to this RfAr.

The articles that Merecat disrupted have suffered as a direct result of his behavior. And now there's no reasonable doubt that he is Rex - a well-known troll - deliberately evading his prior ArbComm remedies. Such conduct is wrong whatever the political POV of the miscreant - and I did not participate in the prior RfAr's. To cause this much disruption is really wrong and really shouldn't be tolerated by a responsible community.

I ask that it be considered that 4 or more ArbCom hearings may in fact be more than enough time and effort already taken from the work of the encyclopedia to address the proven bad faith of one troll, and that enough is in fact enough. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Statement by Tbeatty (talk · contribs)

Since it's stipulated that none of the edits are disruptive, isn't it proof that Merecat was acting in Good Faith and therefore contributing positiviely to the project. Regardless of whether the "Merecat" account was a sock puppet or not, he has positively contributed to Wikipedia for at least 5 months, and in the end isn't this what matters? Ryan's account of Merecat's "violations" are already outlined on an RfC and as far as I can tell the RfC would end in Merecat's favor. Ryan has attempted to stifle dissent to his POV by endlessly attacking this user and using the processes of Wikipedia to essentially prevent people from contributing. Merecat's only violations was of recruiting users to vote on an AfD. He should be blocked for 24 hours. If he is indeed a sock puppet of Rex, his sock puppet should be disabled and he should be warned about using sock puppets. Further, Ryan should be banned from bringing any further ArbCom or RfC actions against Merecat and vice versa. THis is a waste of time for everyone involved. Spending time trying to ban a user who is not disruptive is against the principles of wikipedia. This request should be closed with prejudice.--Tbeatty 01:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are stats on the account being accused of being a "sockpuppet" and a "troll":

Username	Merecat
Total edits	2302
Image uploads	4 (4 cur, 0 old)
Distinct pages edited	323
Edits/page (avg)	7.13
First edit	2005-04-13 01:55:13

--Tbeatty 03:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131 (talk · contribs)

I am conflicted about this RFAR. I believe Merecat (talk · contribs) has been ganged up on by a group of editors who do not like the fact that he has been editing articles like Rationales to impeach George W. Bush and Movement to impeach George W. Bush from a Republican POV, trying to steer the articles to some sense of neutrality. The RFA filed by Prometheuspan (talk · contribs) and the RFC filed by Nescio (talk · contribs) are examples of this behavior; in the RFC, the overwheling majority of outside views either support Merecat or place the blame for the conflict equally on Merecat and his opponents. However, the revelation that he was posting from anonymous IPs to avoid a block for disruption, and was likely both the "Anon Texan" and Rex071404 (talk · contribs) are deeply troubling. I urge Arbcom to examine the entire situation, including edit warring, disruptive behavior and personal attacks made by all the parties.

A brief history.

I became aware while editing Killian documents that an anonymous user who was obviously a Republican was making edits from a number of IP addresses that resolve to two Texas ISPs, Everyone's Internet and The Planet. Stbalbach at first identified these edits as coming from the banned user Shran, but we realized the the Anon Texan (for lack of a better name) was a different user. See User:Stbalbach/anontexan for a list of IP addresses. From my experience the Anon Texan was aggressive in eliminating anti-Republican bias, and made edits without respecting consensus, but his edits were not overtly pro-Republican, and a case can be made that when most of the editors working on a highly political argument share one POV, respecting consensus will result in maintaining that POV. At the same time, Merecat was involved in editing other political articles including Movement to impeach George W. Bush. I did not edit those articles but I gather his behavior was similar; aggressive removal of what he saw as anti-Bush bias. This resulted in the filing of the aforementioned RFC and RFAR.

On May 2, Rationales to impeach was nominated for Afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)). Merecat, Morton devonshire (talk · contribs) and Nescio all sent out messages to users who had edited the article or voted in the first AfD, urging them to vote in the second ("talk page spamming"). The Afd was marred by blanking of votes and other disruptions (including personal attacks by Prometheuspan) and was closed the next day by Cyde (talk · contribs) acting out of process. The closure was overturned at DRV and the article listed a 3rd time. Nescio, Morton Devonshire and Merecat were all blocked for 24 hours for "vote stacking" but since this is an unwritten policy and none of them was warned first, the block on Nescio and Morton was oveturned by another admin. Merecat's block was left in place, possibly because he was blocked by a different admin, who other admins were less willing to overturn.

During Merecat's block, two of the IPs used by the anon Texans resumed talk page spamming regarding the third AfD, and another Texas IP posted a complaint about Merecat's block to the admin who had unblocked the other two spammers. So Merecat basically outed himself as the Anon Texan. A checkuser request was made [12] and Mackensen confirmed that Merecat was evading his block and was also likely to be Rex071404. RyanFreisling (talk · contribs), who has been edit warring with Merecat over a number of political articles, began posting requests at WP:ANI and this RFAR to have Merecat/Rex071404 permanently banned for editing John Kerry, even though he acknowledges that Merecat's edits to John Kerry have not been disruptive, and the Arbcom remedy for Rex editing John Kerry was stated to be a week's block.

I hope this summary is useful and I urge the Arbcom to accept the case to examine the behavior of all the involved parties. Thatcher131 02:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Woohookitty (talk · contribs)

I was one of the prior petitioners in this case. I don't really want to become involved in this again outside of this statement. To me, it's pretty simple. If it can be proven that Merecat is Rex, then he should be blocked because he's in violation of his arbcom decision. "Positively contributed for 5 months" isn't really an issue. Letting someone get around a block should and cannot be tolerated. --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Nescio (talk · contribs)

Although only involved in discussions (monologues by him is a better word) with Merecat (talk · contribs) I feel the need to respond to Tbeatty and Thatcher131. Tbeatty points out that the RFC on Merecat is not entirely supported. This is true, but what he does not say is the reason. As is the case in his statement here, on the RFC editors misrepresent the facts or simply ignore what Merecat has done. Above Thatcher131 states that "Merecat, Morton devonshire (talk · contribs) and Nescio all sent out messages to users who had edited the article or voted in the first AfD, urging them to vote in the second ("talk page spamming")." This fails to mention that I responded (which was of course stupid of me) to the clear attempt at disrupting this 2nd AFD by two editors with opposing views. Nuance changes the message he is sending out. Then "Nescio, Morton Devonshire and Merecat were all blocked for 24 hours for "vote stacking" but since this is an unwritten policy and none of them was warned first, the block on Nescio and Morton was oveturned by another admin." Again, this is incorrect. Merecat was not blocked for what Morton and I did, related to the 2n AFD. His block was the result of him again starting the recruitment procedure in the 3rd AFD for which he must have noticed the mess that had been created, and the blocks following the 2nd AFD. That is why his block started later, and while the block on Morton and myself was lifted, the block for a different reason, on Merecat was continued.

This technique of leaving out details, or overtly misrepresenting the facts, is exactly what is wrong with the RFC on Merecat. In stead of addressing the presented case people respond by pointing fingers, as can be seen in Thatcher131's response here. Even if Merecat is guilty of what the RFC says, he argues that others are guilty too (paraphrasing what I think Thatcher131 is saying). By that logic no RFC, or RfAr can be filed since this argument of those without sin throwing the first stone applies always. Simply stated, the number of people commenting on my behaviour, but not on Meract(!), while they have never discussed with me, or even took part in the disruptive behaviour by Merecat is worrysome.

Further, it is evident that whatever the intentions, if any editor violates policy, rulings, et cetera, his actions and not his intentions should be discussed. Just as in the RFC on Merecat, the logic presented here is that even if editors are violating ArbComm rulings we should ignore that because he is a good fellow and edits in the best of intentions. Clearly, having an ArbComm has become pointless if we adopt that rationale.

Last, the suggestion, by Thatcher131, to investigate all participants on Merecat's RFC, and the relevant AFD's, is highly incendiary. Having seen the havock in both AFD's mentioned above, for which the sockpuppetery was used, trying to spread the mess by implicating as much editors as possible in this debacle is not a very good example of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Nomen Nescio 09:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/1/0)

• Accept, but want to see some proof Fred Bauder 23:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Recuse. Neutrality^talk 03:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

---

User:kitteneatkitten vs. user:RJII

Involved parties

User_talk:RJII

User_talk:kitteneatkitten

brief summary

I think the classical liberalism article, before I edited it, suffered from libertarian bias that pervaded nearly every paragraph, and made changes that I believe rendered the article neutral.

RJII disagrees with many or all of these changes, and thinks that I turned a neutral article into a biased one.

Kitteneatkitten 04:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

attempts at resolution

After many edits and discussion of the issue on the Talk page, I indicated that we ought to arbitrate this issue to RJII. He is aware of my desire to arbitrate.

RJII has requested mediation, however I am quite certain that mediation would be fruitless and should not be used for the following reasons:

1. The issues we are disputing are rather binary in nature and not subject to a compromise. Specifically, I contend that the phrase "classical liberal" cannot be used to describe modern libertarian political writers or their ideas in a neutral manner, while RJII disagrees.

2. RJII's user page indicates he feels very strongly about certain libertarian/anarchist issues and that he is not one who is inclined to compromise on them. In a previous arbitration that he was involved in the arbitrators found that he had repeatedly engaged in personal attacks, including saying such things as "go blow it out your ***."

He wrote this in response to a two-week general ban: "Whatever. Power freaks. I've done nothing wrong. I have nothing to consider. Might as well make it a lifetime ban. You administrators have don't have a clue of what you're doing. You've defaulted on your main mission --to keep information from being supressed. I've been relentless in bringing information to Wikipedia that has been supressed. You're part of the problem."

He has begun to display this uncivil attitude toward me in this dispute, though I will not burden you here with the gory details.

3. While RJII has requested mediation (to which I have not agreed) rather than arbitration, his request seems to indicate that he thinks this step is 100% necessary before arbitration, even if it would be fruitless.

4. I strongly believe the best course of action is to merge the "classical liberalism" article with the articles on "liberalism" and "libertarianism."

I did not do this because I knew it would greatly provoke the many libertarians who are very active in defending their points of view here and elsewhere on the Internet. I agree with the Wikipedia article on systemic bias "The Wikipedia project has a systemic bias that grows naturally out of the demographic of its contributors." WP:CSB It is pretty well documented and well known that libertarians are very active Internet users compared to their numbers in the population of English-speaking countries.

With this in mind, the changes I made were as modest as I possibly could go. I did not make the Wikipedia as good as I thought I could make it. Rather I made what I consider to be a modest attempt to reduce the libertarian bias that pervades almost every article that has anything to do with libertarians.

In other words, I have already compromised all I am willing to compromise by not making major structural changes to several of the articles dealing with liberalism.

5. An admin, user:jmabel, noted on the CL talk page: "From what I've seen in the literature of political science, most political scientists would hesitate to use the term "classical liberalism" to refer to anything much later than the mid-19th century". He/She and several other users have raised objections to the article in the talk page akin to mine, going back for several months.

6. Finally, in requesting this I would like to note that I have spent about twelve hours on this issue already, and going through both a fruitless mediation and then arbitration would be quite a burden on me. I care about this issue, but eventually devoting more than an entire waking day to it is a bit much!

Kitteneatkitten 04:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 1

Libertarians often call themselves “classical liberals.” They say they do this because modern liberals have deviated from the legacy of early liberal thinkers, while they (libertarians) have not.

In my view, in which of course I am not alone, libertarians are not liberals, “classical” or otherwise, and any resemblance between libertarians and early liberals is insignificant and/or superficial. In my view, if libertarians are “classical” anything, they are classical conservatives, bearing a great deal of resemblance to conservative figures in history such as Frederic Bastiat and Herbert Hoover. For example, it is a standard libertarian belief that private racial discrimination ought to be legal. Thus they would object to the government prohibiting a restaurant from only serving blacks in a segregated back room, or making them sit on the back of a private bus. They also would not object to a private employer firing an employee only for being gay, or having a policy of not hiring women with children as secretaries. To me, these viewpoints are reactionary and manifestly illiberal, and certainly would not be the view of someone like Voltaire or Thomas Paine were they here today. They also believe that all roads and educational institutions should be private, a view that the founder of the University of Virginia, who presided over substanial public road building as President, would find reactionary and bizarre.

I view their use of the term “classical liberal” as far from neutral, but rather an attempt to co-opt and wrap themselves in the legacy of great historical figures such as John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. For this reason I think the entry on “classical liberalism” must note and discuss the fact that it is primarily a phrase used by libertarians. Calling Locke, Jefferson, Paine and Bentham on one hand and Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard on the other hand all “classical liberals” is just not neutral. It would be one thing if we lacked neutral words to describe them, but we don’t. The first set of figures can be called “early liberals” and the second set “libertarians.”

To allow libertarians to use “classical liberal” as they would like I believe is akin to allowing loaded words such as “anti-choice” and “partial-birth abortion” to be used in articles discussing abortion.

Kitteneatkitten 04:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

(about 350 words)

Statement by party 2

This is a bit ridiculous. "Classical liberalism" is a real term for a real philosophy. It's not a "libertarian" term. And, it's not identical to libertarianism. And, it's really shady to bring up things I said, such as "blow it out your ass" a long time ago to someone else, which have already been dealt with in a previous arbitration. I don't understand why he wants to make this personal. Well, of course I do. If one can get the other editor banned then he's more likely to get his way in editing. I tried to take this to mediation but he refuses [13] [14] And, how convenient of him to "leave out the gory details" of me being "uncivil" with him, because it never happened. This is a content dispute; this is what he wants to do to the artice: [15] (note he also deletes credible sources). And, as he pointed out above, if he had his way, he would get rid of the article altogether. He doesn't think there is any such thing as "classical liberalism." Others on the Talk page there think he's wrong as well: [16] Finally, it's very interesting how an editor who has only had his account for just a few weeks is so familiar with Wikipedia processes and my history. I can't help but admire his spotless record. How can I get a whitewash? RJII 16:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Max rspct

RJII should be banned indefinitely... even if just 4 what is on his userpage. This is not justice! max rspct leave a message 22:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

withdraw

I withdraw my request, thank you for your consideration Kitteneatkitten 06:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is reserved for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

• Reject, premature (user's 50th edit), try mediation first. Dmcdevit·t 18:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Reject until mediation has been tried. Fred Bauder 21:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Reject for now per Dmcdevit, Fred Bauder. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Reject, what they said. Charles Matthews 19:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

---

SPUI vs JohnnyBGood, PHenry and Rschen7754 and various other editors

Involved parties

SPUI vs JohnnyBGood, PHenry, Rschen7754 and various other editors

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• JohnnyBGood
• SPUI
• PHenry
• Rschen7754

Various solutions tried

Mediation (1 month ago), various discussions on AN and an RfC in addition to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California State Highways.

Brief summary of dispute

In short, this dispute involves move warring over the naming of various state roads. Various attempts to mediate has not been suscessful and SPUI has refused an offer I have made for third party binding arbitration due to the fact that he insists he is right "I'm very leery of binding arbitration, as I know I'm correct. Thus I'll have to say no. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 19:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)." In the past, SPUI has made changes to the naming of the pages, and JohnnyBGood has reverted them pending lack of consensus. I attempted to offer mediation but various users have stated that after previous attempts it is almost pointless and ArbCom is the only way to settle this dispute -- Tawker 00:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not filing a statement in this party as I am not in dispute, I am only trying to find a solution here and it has come down to this. -- Tawker 00:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 1

I guess I'm party 1? I have move warred. Maybe I shouldn't have. But nothing else was working. My arguments were clearly detailed at Talk:State Route 2 (California). I still don't understand the arguments of the other side. Maybe it would have gone better if I did, but I really don't. The majority of people I've talked to, or that have commented out of the blue, agree with my names, but there are several editors that keep moving them back to "California State Route X", even claiming that that is somehow not only the correct disambiguation method, but also the correct name in real life. But that's all a content dispute, and outside the ArbCom's mandate. Which is why this will probably not result in a solution any more than the previous attempts.

For a specific example: State Route 66 (California). I was working on U.S. Route 66-related stuff, and saw that U.S. Route 66 in California was a double redirect - JohnnyBGood never cleans them up. I had two choices - either fix the double redirects to what I knew to be the wrong name, or move it back. I chose the option that I knew would make the encyclopedia better.

Another example, this time by Rschen7754 - [17].

Again, this is all content dispute stuff. So whatever. I move warred, because nothing else was working, and I knew I had consensus from real life and disambiguation conventions. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 01:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

A few months ago, SPUI moved the Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey, and other pages to what he considers to be the proper disambiguation standard: "State Route/Road/Highway x (State)". He was not opposed there. A few months ago, SPUI removed the {{routeboxca2}} infobox from California State Route 15. He then proceeded to move the page to State Route 15 (California). He was reverted. He reverted back. He ignored discussions. He then proceeded to move all of the California State Route pages (over 200), and reverted after he was reverted, with no consensus for his position at WP:NC/NH. He then tried to massively redo {{routeboxca2}}. He was reverted. He tried to TFD {{routeboxca2}}. No consensus for deletion. He created his own {{Infobox CA Route}} and changed many articles to it. He was reverted. He reverted back. He spread this dispute to other states such as Washington and Rhode Island. He was reverted. He reverted back. In short, all 2,500+ articles are subject to become part of this edit war. Something must be done.

This is not a personal attack against SPUI by the way. He is a good contributor. We just don't approve of his methods sometimes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:PHenry

I regret that this unbelievably stupid dispute has come to this, but I think it's been inevitable for a long time and I am certain that it will continue until some kind of binding decision is made. During the course of this unpleasantness, I have found that every participant on either side that I've tried to communicate with has been interested in working toward a mutual common-sense solution with the sole exception of SPUI. If he were not involved, I have no doubt whatsoever that any dispute would have been settled quickly a long time ago. Unfortunately, SPUI doesn't "do" discussion—his preferred method of operation is to wear more-reasonable editors down through warring, hostility, and abusive behavior, until they give up and he gets his way.

I honestly don't care that much about which naming standard is settled upon. I have been a reluctant participant in these edit wars because I believe very strongly that one user should not be allowed to steamroll over everyone else simply because he's willing to be more obnoxious than everyone else. My opinions and contributions are valid, goddammit, and so are Rschen7754's and JohnnyBGood's and Atamir's and yours and those of every other good-faith editor on Wikipedia. And SPUI, who is generally a very valuable contributor, is not more valid than anyone else, and certainly does not have a license to disregard the process of consensus building through polite discussion and negotiation without which Wikipedia cannot survive. I've revert-warred with SPUI in defense of a position that I didn't even agree with, because the matter had gone through a deletion debate that his (and my) position lost, yet he refused to accept it. That's how strongly I feel about the necessity of respecting other people's input and contributions.

I urge—no, I beg the ArbCom to take this matter up, while apologizing for my part in dragging you into what our children's children will remember as one of the lamest edit wars ever. Under normal circumstances, there would be no need for a formally binding decision to be made here, but as SPUI made clear to me,[18] he doesn't intend to stop warring, ever, not until he gets his way. This attitude needs to be stopped here and now. --phh (^t/_c) 03:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Locke Cole

I've been somewhat involved with this (and am a little dismayed that I was not informed this had been moved to arbitration). Specifically, I was involved in part of the California dispute, and also involved in the Washington State dispute. SPUI's behavior is, I think, understandable. Relatively new administrators such as Rschen7754 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had been trying to enforce a "rule" they believe they created on WP:AN/I (the rule stating that there are to be no page moves of highway related articles). Rschen7754, who was involved in a dispute with me at the time, blocked me and refused to unblock me unless I promised to not move pages away from his preferred naming. I believe this behavior is, in part, why SPUI may have given up on discussion (not to mention the lack of interest by the opposing parties to listen to what he has to say).

To quote the Blocking policy, specifically, "When blocking may not be used", it states: Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.

• 2006-03-31 05:03:31 – Rschen7754 demonstrates his involvement in the content dispute.
• 2006-03-31 06:24:30 – Rschen7754 reverts List of Washington State Routes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to his preferred names with the edit summary rv to version that does not link to 100 redirects.
• 2006-03-31 06:33:30 – Rschen7754 threatens me with a block for moving (renaming) pages to names he doesn't prefer, citing WP:ANI as "stating" that "any mass moves of highway pages are grounds for being blocked". He finishes with: "Move any more pages and you will be blocked."
• 2006-03-31 06:45:07 – Rschen7754 blocks me with the reason per WP:ANI- user was mass moving road pages with no consensus, was warned explicitly.
• 2006-03-31 06:47:21 – Rschen7754 leaves a note saying he blocked me claiming it is unbiased.
• 2006-03-31 06:58:21 – Rschen7754 offers to unblock if I promise not to move pages away from his preferred names "until this is resolved".

I urge the ArbCom to accept this case to look at the abuse of sysop powers by Rschen7754 and how this may have affected peoples interest in opposing his point of view. As per Raul654's suggestion below, having a binding decision on the content dispute might also prove useful, but I believe there's a deeper problem that needs to be addressed. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by JohnnyBGood

Just a thought, why don't we keep this confined to the naming dispute. If you have an issue with any actions of Rschen let's keep it seperate as all parties involved in this dispute have done things that violate policy in some form or another and bringing one in will lead them all to be dumped here, which will just cloud the core issue that needs to be resolved here. JohnnyBGood t c 20:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

While there may or may not be other policy violations, I'm concerned with the chilling effect Rschen7754's actions may have had on people who may have spoken up in favor of SPUI or been more open to changing their mind. The landscape of any dispute changes drastically when someone abuses sysop powers like this. I don't believe any other policy violations rise to this level in this dispute, and I believe this dispute may have been shaped differently had Rschen7754 not abused his powers. (Rschen7754 has also blocked SPUI, for the record). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Response

First off please link to the page that provides the ruling: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive84. Secondly, you were blocked for a whopping 15 minutes. Thirdly, JohnnyBGood is right. None is circumspect here, probably. Take this to RFC or somewhere else if you're upset over a fifteen-minute block. Fourthly, I am not a person who intimidates people. Rather, the reverse. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I was only blocked for 15 minutes because I agreed to your ridiculous conditions (effectively "don't move away from my preferred names"). Second, it's not how long I (or anyone) was blocked but the chilling effects your abuse may have had on people who might have agreed with SPUI and I, except they didn't want to find themselves blocked by the person they would have been in a dispute with. Third, don't you dare tell me where I can mention your wrongdoings. If you don't like your poor actions being brought to the attention of people who can reprimand you, maybe that's a clue you never should have done them in the first place, huh? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal by Raul654

I have an idea - would it be acceptable to both parties if, instead of accepting this case, we (the committee) simply offered binding decision as to the naming dispute? That is to say, both SPUI and JohnnyBGood give us a BRIEF explination for why their naming scheme is the correct one and the other guy's is not, and we come down in favor of one or the other. Raul654 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That was in short what I was thinking ArbCom would do in this case. Placing sanctions on any of the parties involved does not make much sense, I offered to do this in a non formal non ArbCom situation and it was rejected, hence it came here. I don't think a conduct case makes much sense here and would be a waste of ArbCom's time, I just want some way of stopping the move warring so we don't have to go through it all again -- Tawker 02:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As much as I'd assume the ArbCom is smart and would pick the correct naming, I don't like the possibility of the wrong one being chosen. That's probably one reason the ArbCom doesn't get involved in content disputes - it would have to apply to all editors to be worth anything. Thus, even if the four of us, or everyone currently in this dispute, agreed to make it binding, that's not going to keep someone in the future from moving them. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 01:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"I don't like the possibility of the wrong one being chosen." I think that pretty much says it all, honestly. --phh (^t/_c) 03:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

We avoid content disputes (emphasis on the word content) because we are not a panel of experts. That is to say, we lack the expertise to determine if a given sentence or paragraph is true, false, mistated, 'etc. On the other hand, it does not take a panel of experts to decide what the naming scheme should be. Raul654 18:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems reasonable, and I think SPUI could do a good job at explaining the situation. Though, like SPUI, I also have reservations about the binding nature of any decision like this. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be amenable to either approach, and offer to help JohnnyBGood create his explanation if he likes. --phh (^t/_c) 15:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with either approach. JohnnyBGood t c 18:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup. I think that someone else should give the argument though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Who would you suggest? --phh (^t/_c) 02:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Could we have a temporary ban on moving state highway pages until this is resolved? (For all parties involved) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As per an AN discussion (its somewhere in the archives) move warring is a blockable offence, no need for an official ArbCom ruling IMHO -- Tawker 20:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is reserved for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0)

• Accept for the purpose of binding arbitration regarding the style issue Fred Bauder 21:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Simonapro vs. User:Viritidas and User:InShaneee

Involved parties

User:Simonapro User:Viritidas User:InShaneee

(Provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simonapro&redirect=no This is mytalk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Viriditas Viriditas mytalk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:InShaneee InShaneee mytalk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Stairway (first dispute) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis#Species (wikistalking)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

(Provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Viriditas#Arbitration_with_regards_to_User:_Simonapro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:InShaneee#Arbitration_with_regards_to_User:_Simonapro

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Stairway. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simonapro&redirect=no

Statement by party 1

In the process of this dispute I have been called a troll twice by Viriditas. Once at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heaven%27s_Stairway#Ownership_of_Overgrow.com_web_site_in_dispute and the second time again after he apologised the first time at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heaven%27s_Stairway. However I would not be here if it was not for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Simonapro at the bottom where even though a dipute is going on Viritidas is now wikistalking me on another article. See lower section on mytalk page "Avoid duplicate links on a page".

InShaneee has already banned me for 24 hours for editing my own talk page. He also says that I have no right to stop Viritidas from editing a discussion page and removing my posts on the discussion. He also says that I have no right to accuse Viriditas of stalking me. I believe that InShaneee is wrong. I have a right not be called a troll (I acknowledge that eventually InShanee agreed this was wrong the first time, but thinks the second one is good faith). I also have a right not to be called a troll by InShanee. I have never had problems like this in the past with anyone. I am working with the mediator on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heaven%27s_Stairway to move things forward for a better article. Being 'Civil' does not mean enduring repeated attacks and harrasement. I am working on other articles with other contributors and have NEVER experienced these kind of major distruptions to my overall enjoyment of wikipedia. :)

I also have a right not to be wikistalked. I also have a right to point out that my discussions should not be edited from a discussion page. I believe I am allowed to state my case without been banned for doing so. I just want the attacks and harrasement to stop. User:InShaneee has not been helpful and I believe neither parties are now acting in good faith. Good faith would be to recognize that you are already in a dispute and not to start another dispute with the same person over another wiki article. Banning me was not helpful and is one of the many reasons why I have had to come here. I have been told by Inshanne that even Requests for arbitration are considered attacks (insulting and threatening). I don't believe I should be abused and cornered and told to keep shut about it. I believe that my reason for coming here should be taken in 'good faith' and not as some kind of a ploy. I also shouldn't have to come here and do this. The bottom line is that I want the attacks and harrasement to stop. Thank you for your time.

Statement by User:InShaneee

First of all, I don't have any stake in the dispute these other two users are in, nor do I plan to get involved with it in the least. My only involvement was to block User:Simonapro for repeated incivility, and then to continue to warn him when he now refuses to stop (which, incidentally, I intend to continue, if no one has any objections, since this user appears to be filing this RfA instead of showing any signs of attempting to work with other users civilly). Secondly, as the above links show, there has been no outside attempts at dispute resolutions whatsoever, and this is in fact a bad faith RfA, as I do believe Simon's talk page demonstrates. Not only that, but this has only happened in the last month, and even then over the course of a few comments, so I hardly thinks it's worthy of Arbitration. Thirdly, I'll summarize my comment on Simon's talk page for you to review here: Viriditas was a little uncivil in the past, but has now been working to improve his behavior. Simon, on the other hand, has done nothing but troll (primarily on Talk:Heaven's Stairway, reverting anyone he disagrees with, and insulting and threatening anyone who attempts to open a diolouge with him (this being the latest result of that). I certainly hope the abitrators agree that this is all just a scare tactic and that Simon needs to learn to be respectful to other users after this case is thrown out. --InShaneee 18:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is reserved for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Statement by uninvolved user Stifle

This does not appear to have visited WP:RFC. I would recommend taking it there first. Stifle (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/2/0/0)

• Reject, arbitration is a last resort, please refer to mediation or RFC. Dmcdevit·t 06:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 21:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Reject, talk it through some more. Charles Matthews 19:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

---

User:Freestyle.king vs. User:Jiang

Involved parties

User:Jiang

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

(Provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration.)

• User:Jiang [19] (note scroll to the bottom of his talkpage, there are two headings called arbitration currently on his talkpage)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• [[20]] (Note: This attempt of negotiation results in a block from User:Nlu)
• [[21]] discussion (very little feedbacks and result in personal attack from User:Henry Flower)
• [[22]] (Jiang refused to mediate, he suggested to submit the issue to village pump policy, see below)
• [[23]]

Statement by party 1

Jiang was reverting his user page and talk page to a state that called disruption of Wikipedia. (See [24].) I am tempted to revert it, but I might very likely be block by either Jiang or User:Nlu. However, I would like arbitrators' inputs on this. Should his preferred version be allowed to stand? Is it communist propganda to justify its claim over Taiwan? (Note that Taiwan-China relation is already a delicate topic on wikipedia) Is it a personal attack (albeit against a group (specifically an ethic group, not an individual), deserving severe consequences? Accusations on these 2 images are targeting at Dalai Lama, Taiwanese President Chen Shui-Bian, 319 Shooting Incident, among others. One must wonder, as a sysop himself, Jiang is often zealous in reverting/editing Taiwanese-Chinese related articles and such a radical view in this political matter is not of the benefit of such a great project like wikipedia. Note that Jiang often ignores other users effort to communicate and sometimes "gang up" with other admins to block out users voice before they can settle content disputes in the above articles and/or topics related to images on his talkpage/userpage.--Bonafide.hustla 06:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

Once again, as I have stated in the arbitration request this same user filed earlier (which was promptly rejected), I have never been told by anyone, other than User:Freestyle.king, that the images on my user and user talk pages are too offensive to stay and need to be removed. If enough people tell me that the images are inappropriate, or convince me that they are against wikipedia policy, then I will remove them. But Freestyle.king has failed to persuade anyone (his repeated postings at AN/I and elsewhere have only received scorn), and has failed to convince me that I am violating policy. It is clear from Freestyle.king's accusations against me (i.e. that there is somehow racism involved) that he cannot read and understand the Chinese characters, which are intended as a form of extreme sarcasm easily understood by those familiar with the language and topic (I have explicitly stated that I do not endorse the message contained therein). There is a point where repeated postings of the same topic, especially by a user whose record is far from satisfactory, becomes extremely disruptive. This is called trolling.--Jiang 03:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by ElC

I sumbitt that the user(s?) behind this arbitration be taken to task in a clear and non-single word manner for edit warring and disruption regarding Jiang's userpage, and for the truly puzzling terms outlined in the first statement, which of course, fails to account for the attempt to forcefuly, and without any mandate whatsoever, censor Jiang from expressing his views on the Political status of Taiwan in his userpage. El_C 06:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is reserved for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)

• Reject. Yes, he refused to mediate because it's a frivolous complaint not worth the Arbitration Committee's time. I agree. Dmcdevit·t 06:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. I don't quite get his user page, but if it crossed whatever line we have, others would also be complaining, including a few who read Chinese. Fred Bauder 03:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Reject; trivial. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker

Involved parties

• User:Sceptre
• User:Leyasu, on ArbCom parole
• User:Deathrocker, being incivil to Leyasu.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[25]

[26]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• delisted RfC in which Deathrocker would not give a statement in
• previous request for Arbitration
• block log of Deathrocker, an obvious request for him to get a mediation
• Also, pertaining to the previous RfAr, Gothic Metal

Statement by Sceptre

Deathrocker has been acting rather incivil during his block on his talk page. This first started when I blocked him for four days to stop both Leyasu and Deathrocker edit-warring, which had me labelled as abusive, and that policy demanded he should be unblocked. This had actually been discussed on the admins' noticeboard, and there was a consensus that he should be blocked for disruption.

Now his block has expired, Deathrocker has been watching Leyasu, accusing him/her of sockpuppetry (Admins' notceboard post, Arbcom Enforcement post), which has regenerated this argument. This is getting beyond a joke with Deathrocker assuming bad faith on the Admins' noticeboard. I'd like to see this dispute resolved once and for all. Will (^E_@) T 21:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement by 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 [27] 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" [28] 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) [29]

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 [30] 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 [31] 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" [32] and been uncivil to people [33], 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; [34]

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 [35], so I recuse as clerk.

Leyasu claims that he has been impersonated, and there is some circumstantial evidence to support this [36]. 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 [37].

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 [38]. 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, [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72].

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, [73], [74].

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 [75]. Immediatly the user went back to vandalisng the page starting another revert war, using the edit summaries for personal attacks, [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84].

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 [85], [86]. This was a bad veiling though as the user never merged the articles, and instead redirected Goth Music to Goth Rock instead [87].

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. [88], [89], [90], [91]. 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 [92], the edit war is on these diffs, [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104].

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 [105].

Deathrocker reverted it, claiming the newbie as a sock puppet, yet offered no proof [106].

The anon reverted this noting that Deathrocker was biting noobs [107].

Deathrocker also persisted in a revert war on Gothic Metal, violating 3RR here as well [108], 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,[109], [110], [111].

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' [112], [113].

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, [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120]. Despite all the reverting, the user Loudenvier said that Deathrocker was POV pushing and starting a revert war on a featured article, [121]. Another user noted that Deathrocker was violting WP:NPOV, as well, [122]. 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, [123].

Admittance To Baiting Into Violating 1RR

Here Deathrocker admits to pushing myself to violate my parole so he can have me banned from Wikipedia, [124].

Userpage Vandalism

Deathrocker also attemped to vandalise comments on Admin Sceptre's talk page, [125], due to Sceptre having previously banned Deathrocker for his serial violations of policy across articles.

Deathrocker also vandalised my user page (Leyasu), [126].. 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, [127].

After Sceptre had removed it, Deathrocker readded it, claiming everyone was 'vandalising', [128].

Threatening Admins

After being blocked by admin Sceptre for a period of four days, the user Deathrocker chose to request an Unblock [129].

This was answered nicely by Rory096 telling Deathrocker he wasnt able to get an unblock without a reason, [130].

Deathrocker responced by Wikilawyering on the 3 Revert Rule policy of Wikipedia, and accusing admin Sceptre of abusing his administrator powers for blocking him [131].

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 [132]. Rory also seconded this, pointing out it was Deathrockers seventh ban for 3RR in a month and the extended block was justified [133].

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[134].

Deathrocker refuted this, Wikilarywering and accusing Rory and Tawker of abusing their administrator powers, readding the unblock tag, [135].

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, [136].

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, [137].

Tawker then went on to tell Deathrocker that making personal attacks at the Admins wasnt going to get him an unblock either, [138].

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, [139].

Deathrocker didnt learn from this and continued Wikilawyering and making personal attacks, now directing this behaviour at admin Essjay, [140].

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', [141].

Admin Freakofnature then reverted the removel per policy, [142].

Deathrocker then reverted admin Freakofnature, claiming vandalism and abuse of administrator powers by admin Freak, [143].

The admin reverted this again, [144].

Deathrocker then reverted again, claiming he is allowed to 3RR on his talk page, and that Freak was abusing admin powers,[145].

Freak didnt respond and just reverted again, [146].

Deahtrocker then reverted again, removing the information to try for another Unblock attempt, [147].

Sceptre reverted this, [148], which Deathrocker reverted again, [149].

Freak reverted, [150], Deathrocker pursued a revert war while claiming he should be unbanned from his serial 3RR ban, [151].

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, [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157].

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 [158].

Deathrocker also spent time setting up a complaint about me on the ANI board, making personal attacks including its time to pull the plug [159]. When i posted a response, [160], Deathrocker proceeded to make personal attacks at me [[161], 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 [162], warning him to stop being incivil.

After this Deathrocker went and then tried the same thing the AE board, [163].

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 [164], 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", [165]. 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" [166].

After apologising to Deathrocker for coming across uncivil [167], and asking him not to make personal attacks [168], 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" [169].

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 [170], [171], [172]. Tony responded and noted that Deathrocker was attempting to bait me into violating my parole, and that i was to avoid responding [173]. 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 [174] 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 [175] 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 [176]. 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 [177], however Deathrocker does not appear to care, continuing defacing my Statement and making Personal Attacks, [178] [179], 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, [180] [181]:

• "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 [182]:

• "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 [183], 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 [184] 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 [185], that is the suspected sock vandalising, which you pointed out here; [186])... 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, [187]

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 [188].... 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 [189]... 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 [190] 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 [191].. 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 [192]... 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 [193]... (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 [194] 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 [195]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 [196]

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 [197]...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" [198]... 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. [199]

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 [200] made a threat to ban them for vandalism [201].. 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; [202] ... 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". [203]

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. [204], 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 [205]. The user has once again attacked me on an administrators page, using the words "go f**k himself" [206] 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)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

• Accept. Dmcdevit·t 05:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 19:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Charles Matthews 19:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests for Clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process.

Lou franklin: "Ineffective editor"

This is a matter of curiosity rather than confusion, but what was meant by "this grossly ineffective request for arbitration"? Being the one who brought that request, I naturally wonder whom/what that bit was directed at. Sorry for this rather belated request (I could have asked this weeks ago if I'd been paying attention in class). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Lou stated on his talk page that he will "raise the red flag" about that article. Do you think this would eventually lead to additional sanctions and/or long-term blocks/bans? 16:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Crotalus horridus

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

The enforcement for Crotalus horridus conflicts with the enforcement provided in the userbox remedy. Presumably the enforcement applies only to Crotalus's probation should that be invoked. Or can admins choose whichever they prefer? (And, if they can, could 5 two-week blocks result in triggering the year-block even though the remedy would not have been invoked since it limits blocks to a week?) -Splash^talk 16:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, we (I?) didn't do that too well. The options are to remove the enforcement from Remedy 1 or to specify that the enforcement only applies to Remedies 2 and 3. I support the former. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

<ping>. I guess it's not especially important since Ch appears to be abiding by it, but it's at least untidy to let it lie. -Splash^talk 23:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

Since the conclusion of the Arbitration case, StrangerInParadise (talk · contribs) has continued to assume bad faith and make disruptive edits with the StrangerInParadise account while maintaining a separate, older, user account. Thus, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al is modified to include the following remedy:

StrangerInParadise restricted to one user account

StrangerInParadise is restricted to one user account. Any sockpuppet accounts will be blocked indefinitely and the main account blocked for up to 48 hours if this is violated.

Support:

1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 14:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 14:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
4. James F. (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Charles Matthews 15:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Archives

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (unofficial)