Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:37, 9 May 2006

Archives

All previous discussions on my talk page are archived at User talk:Idont Havaname/Archive 001, User talk:Idont Havaname/Archive 002, and User talk:Idont Havaname/Archive 003.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhh... Leyasu.

Sorry for the undescriptive subject. :) As said above, the Arbitration case against Leyasu has already started. I was wondering, how did you and Danteferno determine that Leyasu was using sock puppets back in November? As it seems you weren't an admin at the time, and WP:RFCU didn't exist (I'm not sure though, so feel free to correct me on that), and I couldn't find any relevant edits on your side asking for a check (yet to go through Danteferno's), so could you provide any links that prove it? I could ask for a check right now, but IPs unfortunately tend to change at times. I will though, if necessary. Thanks. -- parasti  20:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I took the time to check every IP that edited the gothic metal talk page at the time (if that's the page you're referring to); comments signed with "Porkchop" and later "Metal Mayhem Rulz" were all made from 24.76.91.20, none of them were, however, signed with "Leyasu". There was an ambiguous edit by Leyasu (see the edit summary and the previous edit), that could have led to believe there was sock puppetry involved.

Danteferno had also mentioned Flagrancy and Clontarf-the-mad as some of Leyasu's sock puppets; as it seems there were no anonymous edits signed with these names, so other than the edit count of these users there seems to be nothing to prove it. Funny enough, Flagrancy used the uncommon <p> tag to start the comment, which both Danteferno and Leyasu used at the time , and also signed it using --~~~~, which, by the way, is the way Danteferno signed his comments on the talk page. Well, it's not far from Danteferno and Leyasu being the same person, isn't it?

Other than that it seems to be nothing more than a misunderstanding.

To be honest, I'm not sure why am I part of this case, as it is now renamed to "Leyasu", and I have had no conflicts with the user in question. Other than providing evidence against the evidence of other people, there is nothing I could add to it. And this lack of dislike for Leyasu also seems to be the reason for some of the disagreements between Danteferno and myself, unfortunately.

Well, I'll await your evidence, as I could have missed something important. Apologies for a-bit-too-long a reply. -- parasti  02:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Workshop

Thanks for telling me, ill bear that in mind. Leyasu 09:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

They look okay, I guess. I made a minor change to one of them, since you appear to have copied it from the past decisions of the arbcom but forgot to remove "This principle has no associated penalty". Johnleemk | Talk 03:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

When i said users when i was talking about your evidence and ignoring sources, i meant the anons involved in the CoB article page, which is still undergoing attacks and some inforcement from an admin could be usefull, if youd like to step in.

If my evidence is long, then thats that, coz i have a lot of evidence, and im not going to be picky and chosey, im going to cite every tiny little thing, so that the arbs can make a decision based on ALL the facts, not just ones that people chose to show as a one sided version of the issue. But thanks for the warning all the same. Leyasu 01:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Children of Bodom

Im in violation of the 3RR for reverting the Children of Bodom archive, and i expect you to ban me for this. Can you please step in on its talk page as an admin that already knows about the case, and has had dealing with me, and explain to the anons removing sourced information, blanking sections, and rewording whole sections to emmit all views except their own on the page is vandalism. I already told them about the citing sources policy, and the NPOV policy, and they have just said they dont care basically, and are either trolling, POV pushing, or vandalising for a combination of both.

I plea, for assistance in this matter, and for the users involved, including me, be given the appropriate ban for the 3RR violations. Leyasu 04:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The other user youve blocked as already started vandalising the page again, deleting edits i make, including the addition of the Genre Controversy page. We need amdmin intervention. (Edit) They have also been pooling together to openly vandalise the page . Leyasu 07:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'd like to inform you that the above user has once again violated the Three-revert rule. Also, I should mention that this user is openly defying the policy of Misplaced Pages in continually reverting to a version which is weeks old and contains inaccuracies and spelling and grammar mistakes. The cited reasons for these reverts are "POV" or "vandalism", when, most of the time, the newer edits are genuine, good-faith attempts to contribute by a number of users. Any help you can provide regarding this matter will be appreciated.

Incidentally, that link doesn't prove anything. I was talking about improving the page, not vandalising it. 220.239.77.250 13:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Parasti and User:Leyasu

I read your ArbCom response to the sockpuppet evidence - true, they do have different writing styles, but one could easily alter one to distinguish it from the other - itz as simple as dIs. There's also been times when User:Leyasu's writing has been much better in terms of spelling, punctuation, grammar, etc.

Had User:Parasti been less one-sided on Talk:Gothic metal, ArbCom Report and evidence page, there would be less suspicion, but all he's been doing is talking down User:Leyasu's refusal to provide sources, apologizing for User:Leyasu's use of personal attacks, and pointing fingers (or flinging dirt) at others whenever User:Leyasu's other actions are put into light. In addition, the name was just registered in December 2005. This has a very strong feeling of a sockpuppet impostor.

I hope they do a Check User trace - specifically on the two messages they wrote to "themselves" 5 minutes apart. --Danteferno 08:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Parasti responded to the above post of yours on my talk page , not exactly answering the points mentioned above. He did, however, take some positions that were similar to the ones User:Leyasu made on Talk:Gothic metal and even the talk pages of other articles - if anything, strengthening the sockpuppet theory:

"But, both of you are biased towards one another, so there you go..."

Biasness has nothing to do with it. One editor has information that can be backed up with sources, the other will not provide such. The editor sans sources criticizes the editor with sources and says any reliablity of their sources is just their "point of view". So both editors are "point of view" and biased. Does that make sense? No, certainly not.

Another thing that stood out:

"I think you do have a good enough reason to dislike Leyasu"

Disdain (if really the case) also has nothing to do with anything.If User:Leyasu came back the next day and provided sources that backed up every article in which he was involved in a dispute, fine, done, excellent, end of case. That did not happen. And neither were retractions of various insults or personal attacks on myself or others. But explaining what he did or didn't do has nothing to do with "dislike".

In conclusion: If I was accused or suspected of sockpuppetry, and I knew I was in the clear, I would simply say so, encourage that my IP be compared with the other account, and that's that, done. I wouldn't dig for dirt to try to discredit the accuser, or falsly claim that the accuser calls anyone he "disagrees" with a sockpuppet.After all, User:Parasti and User:Leyasu were the only ones who made that claim. --Danteferno 18:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Nation

Hey man, long time no speak. I'm wondering if you might want to offer a vote, or at least a comment, regarding the issue of whether "The Nation" name space should be the article about the U.S. periodical or a disambiguation page. You can contribute your thoughts here: Talk:The Nation#Article title. Thank you, take care, and keep in touch. --Howrealisreal 20:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey again, and thank you for voting. I was unaware of it being frowned upon to ask people to vote in polls, by the way. There have been a couple people that contributed to the poll about The Nation who don't usually edit there. To clarify, I was only asking you because I remembered that you have a real level-headed approach to Misplaced Pages, and I think of you as an experienced editor whose opinion would be valuable on the topic. I'm sorry if I brought you into some outside wikidrama. Anyway, good luck with finishing up college (I know what that is like, having just graduated in December). Good looking out and I'll probably speak to you again down the road. Take care. --Howrealisreal 19:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Messages on User talk:Idont havaname

Hello. I don't know why, but some users have posted messages for you on your old talk page. They are invisible unless you edit the page. Normally when I find extraneous text after redirects, I delete it, but I don't feel I have the right to do this on User pages, so I am bringing it to your attention. You might want to cut-and-paste those messages to this page. --Russ Blau (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dropkick Murphy's Page

I'm not sure why folks insist on reverting the change I've made without discussing it on the talk page. Please discuss this on the article's talk page without blindly reverting. Thanks 65.78.8.9 22:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

Can you please briefly explain to me the process of becoming an Administrator? --69.232.218.27 04:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu case closed

A final decision has been reached in this case and it has been closed.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 19:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Old Time Relijun

Thank you for your help with Old Time Relijun. --The0208 03:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your swift action in that matter. Jurjen 05:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

-Ril-

Thank you for posting that. It is true that those two users are disruptive sockpuppets, but tagging their user pages for speedy deletion is typical of the sort of disruptive Wikilawyering that -Ril- does. Robert McClenon 20:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for participating in my RfA. It passed with a final tally of 98/13/10, just two short of making WP:100. If you need my help with anything, don't hesitate to ask.

Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

RfA thanks!

Hi, oh nameless one! Thank you for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Category:Uploader unsure of copyright status here I come! Cheers! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyprus

Hey, no problem. :) --Khoikhoi 05:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Help please

Can you do something about 172.168.89.206. His actions on Goce Delchev, Dame Gruev and Category:Macedonian revolutionaries speak for themselves. Also note that a bunch of the same edits were made recently by similar IPs from a dynamic IP pool sugesting very strongly that it's the same person. Finaly can you revert him on Goce Delchev coz I did 3 times already. Regards --Realek 01:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

OK thanx --Realek 01:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #1

Juppiter and Missing Wikipedians

Thanks for letting me know. The last time I posted someone up at MW was a long time ago, I see they must have updated the rules there. I went and added him to EA's alert page. It's just sad he left because of OrphanBot. --LBMixPro 05:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow.

I have no idea how you have so much information on the Deadlines. Sorry, i should have introduced myself first. Hi, this is Shaun (formerly of the Deadlines) and I think you may know more about the band than I do (or that I remember.) I happened upon this wikipedia post after Googling my last name for some family history stuff, by the way the internet is officially completely ridiculous, and was amazed by what you had posted. It was pretty much right on, I changed one thing and think there are a few more minor vagaries that I might go clear up, but, damn I have no idea how you found all of that. I was positive it was either a member of the band or someone from tooth & nail that did this, although now that I think about it I guess it could be. So now I'm wondering, are you from Portland? Do I know you? Anyway, good work, I'm going to go edit it a little for accuracy and favorable spin (kidding.)

Thanks for doing this, Shaun Sundholm (Coffin) whatever.

P.S. I'm thinking you had to be in the band to know all of this. Who the heck are you?

P.P.S. I hope you get this I couldn't find an email to contact you through.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by F-letter (talk • contribs)

Congratulations! You might be a winner!

You won the Misplaced Pages:10 GNAA AfD nominations pool, in case you didn't notice. :) Ashibaka tock 04:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It really is the 11th nom though. The 10th was done in March but no one was signed up for March. Since that would be a travesty the 10th was speedy deleted by Rob Church. Kotepho 05:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My (HereToHelp’s) RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I’m proud to inform you that it passed with 75 support to 1 oppose to 2 neutral. I promise to make some great edits in the future (with edit summaries!) and use these powers to do all that I can to help. After all, that’s what I’m here for! (You didn’t think I could send a thank you note without a bad joke, could I?) --HereToHelp 13:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #2

God

Why was what i added nonsense? it was the truth, the proof is at http://www.wwe.com

Shawn Michaels & God vs Vince and Shane McMahon

God

It is the god in the religious sense that is booked into a match at WWE Backlash, there is no wrestler called God, when Vince McMahon said God, he meant God, check it out if ya dont believe me

Reply to AE

I understand. Whatever has to be done should then be done after the results come in. As for 'baiting', as far as I knew there was no substantial dispute between us until the anon IP's reverted everything yesterday. I hope that once the ban is lifted the dispute will not continue as I have tried to work this out with User:Leyasu, the last thing I want is this to continue. Thanks, --Ryouga 21:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hi, I'm just wondering about the best way to chase up the results of the checkuser on Leyasu, and to get the appropriate action taken re: that and his other possible indiscretions? I'd like to see the matter resolved one way or the other but it seems the Checkuser and WP:AE pages haven't been given much attention... Deizio 13:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

So does Jayjg's response count as sufficient evidence? I notice that no action was taken against Ley for evading his block the other day, and if the evidence is sufficient that the April 17th and 20th cases are both block-triggering contraventions then that would equal his 5th and 6th blocks since the arbcom ruling. After five blocks his max penalty increases to one year which would be a shame in some ways, but his reverting has become ridiculous, the ruling was fair and you can only push it so far, 6 contraventions of an arbcom ruling in a few weeks? Imo sanction is required for evading Ryan Delaney's block, something Ley admitted and therefore I believe you could enforce it without any worries about bias or conflict. The question of the checkuser evidence needs to be judged by others and a way to bring it to attention will have to be found. Nice one, Deizio 21:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Received and understood, wasn't quite aware of the nature / depth of the dispute. Nice, Deizio 01:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding the move you made on RfCU to completed and denied, the complaint headed Theonlyedge (talk • contribs) and Pm shef (talk • contribs) is actually the part part of the complaint that was continued as Pm_shef which was ruled inconclusive and you moved to complete. The top part should be moved down and the whole thing refactored as necessary (after the first complaint was posted several other editors jumped on the bandwagon making a hash of the whole thing.) Thatcher131 20:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's Deckiller's post, then Mangojuice added, and here's where Leotardo added his 2 cents. It was all part of the same issue, although it was not factored properly. Thatcher131 20:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A simple Yes it was Ley or No it wasnt Ley would be nice, rather than a speculated Highly Likely, and an accusation with no proof. If your going to try to get me barred, at least do it with clarity. Ley Shade 04:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

And likewise vandalism cannot be tolerated either. The only times ive violated my revert parole has been reverting vandalism until WP:HMM has taken over, and everytime ive stated that ive violated ruling.

And i already put in for an extension to my last block, FYI. And we arent exactly at debates on the Gothic Metal article, it just got ramped up my prioritys. Ley Shade 05:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

By that statement, someone putting I JUST HAKZORED YOUR SIGHT LOLZ could be counted as constructive as long as the user questions wether its vandalism. I hate to Wikilawyer but im not an idiot.

And dont be so condescending and patronising with your 'thanks for admitting it' comments, its not a good way to make people like you. If you want to get sarcastic and patronising, just come out and say it.

And no, what i revert is vandalism, especially when a page is admin warned with hidden tags NOT TO CHANGE SOMETHING, and is protected by a Wikiproject. Sure, violating WP:CITE, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR is really not vandalism, well done. Ley Shade 05:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

RFCU on Leyasu

Your RFCU on Leyasu has been completed. Jayjg 05:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Roller coasters

Thanks for the vote, and I'd also love to see much better general coverage of roller coasters, in fact I've been trying to get things organized at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Roller Coasters, but the project is still in its infancy and doesn't have nearly enough participants. Maybe you'd like to help out if you have any spare time. Dusso Janladde 13:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Children of Bodom

As you know im 'skating on thin ice', and someone is trying to use that my 1RR parole as an excuse to vandalise the Children of Bodom article. The article explicity has a warning on it provided by Admin User:Snowflake that changing the genre is vandalism, and user Mike has ignored this, changing it to what he deems appropriate . The user has done this one several occasions though, and has been warned to discontinue this as its vandalism, violationg not only the admin warning but WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. Seeing as you know the conditions of my 1RR, i suggest you go over and revert and protect the page, as a RFC and an Admin have both set that warning and this continued vandalism isnt helping anyone. Ley Shade 16:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The user that changed it has used many different IPs and Sockpuppets to do it, as a check user revealed. And i cant change it with my 1RR back to what it was. Their whole attitude has been refusing to use the talk page which i have asked them on several occasions to use. I have explained WP:CITE, WP:NPOV and WP:V to them, and they refuse to ackknowledge them, giving the attitude Im above all and everyone.

Im getting tired of it, i put in a hell of a lot of time before with the last RFC and the discussions on it, and the Admin Warning was there so that people could edit the article and wouldnt change it intentionally. Admin Snowflake explicittly says its vandalism to do so, so why do i always get the slack for reverting what has been slated as Vandalism?

Anyways, someone needs to change it back and have serious words with that user, less they will assume that they can openly vandalise any article they wish without regard. Ley Shade 20:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Asian fetish

Hi, Idont Havaname. The Asian fetish article is at the center of another big edit war again, this time between Gnetwerker, who thinks that Asian fetish is defined as pornography involving Asian women, and me, who thinks that it is defined as men who are obsessed with Asian women. There's been a lot of controversy in the past, but this one is just plain ridiculous. In order to reach for NPOV, we really, desperately need some editors who are familiar with the various points of view on the subject as you are. Thanks in advance. Best, Wzhao553 13:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The comment above misrepresents my position. -- Gnetwerker 23:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

afd of list of rappers notable for their race

The reason its not called List of white rappers is because not every notable white rapper could be put on there-- in the netherlands, and sweden, for example-- being white is the norm. So that title would be either POV or uninformative. Please reconsider your vote, thanks.--Urthogie 22:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

thats my point precisely-- its not POV for american, but its POV for everything else! we're a world encyclopedia, so that title and content would favor an american point of view!--Urthogie 14:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker

Concerning Deathrocker's arbcom case. The user is now claiming that Myself/You and Admin Sceptre are assuming bad faith in our statements on the ArbCom case.

On the talk page, he is also Wikilawyering claiming the whole Case is against policy, and claiming Sceptre is abusing his admin powers by filing the case, a claim that during his one month block he extended to five other admins that refused to unblock him, and several more on the ANI board.

He his also making claims that im making inflamatory claims and lying in my arbcom statement, but in the numerous times ive asked him to provide diffs he has refused. He's also persisting in making uncivil comments about my Parole, and telling me that i have to assume good faith or i will be banned, something which he seems to be gloating on.

In honesty it feels a lot like he is trying to bait me into making a personal attack or being incivil, as he seems to have a firm belief that i myself should not be allowed to comment on the Arbcom case at all.

Mainly i just dont know how to react or what to do, as ive tried apologising if i came across uncivil and asked him to not make personal attacks , and both times he has ignored this and persisted in making inflamtory remarks. I am at a point of wanting to tell him to go F**k Himself, but i already told him that i have no like of him, but i will try to treat all my fellow Wikipedian's with respect .

Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with this, because he is really trying my patience. Ley Shade 09:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually check out these claims this user makes, before you jump to conclusions first please, I have claimed Leyasu was assuming bad faith after I had assumed good faith with this user that much is true. (An acurrate assesment, as even on this page there is a threat to tell me to "f**k myself")

However nowhere did I say either you or Sceptre were "assuming bad faith", actually read the arbcom case and you will see such claims do not appear ANYWHERE, in the article.

This user seems to be doing the rounds of administrator pages with this same message, I presume in an attempt to get them on his "side" as a "sympathy vote", its a form of Wikilawyering with regards to the "bad faith" phrase, claiming I have said it in conjunction with people who I haven't.

The user in question has also assumed bad faith with other users, such as biting a noob, threatening to ban them as a "final warning" looking it seems as though that was the anons first edit, and a non vandalism at that acording to , though I doubt issues like this are even thought about.... as there are much more important priorities like cases against people for helping Misplaced Pages community by reporting suspected socks.

All this won't matter in the end anyway as the case and the subsequent outcome is in violation of Misplaced Pages dispute policies, as stated already in the article, as no attempts at meditation or dicsussion on the admins part was made before bringing the current case to ArbCom. Thanks - Deathrocker 13:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The user was already warned by Admin Snowflake and Tony, was also revealed to be a sockpuppet of user User:Mike5193 who has recently vandalised my talk page, and has been taken through an RFC which they refused to acknowledge. The anon is one of a series of socks of the user and after two admin warnings has failed to see the point, despite having the core policys explaining to them.

Secondly, i already recieved advice from Tony who has pointed out Deathrocker is attempting to bait me , and has noted that Deathrocker has tried to have my statement disregarded as a personal attack . Deathrocker has also sinced been warned by Sceptre for acting unciviliy and for making personal attacks at me . As such, i have no further connection to Deathrocker aside from the arbcom case and removing the defacement of my statement with the supervision of Tony , which deathrocker keeps redoing claiming im 'vandalising the arbirittion board' . All claims i have made are also backed up in my statement, with all diffs provided . Ley Shade 17:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The anon who you bit and called a vandal only has one post , which debuted today. I've just checked the Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser, and no such case exists showing the anon to be User:Mike5193... there is also no mention on Mike's talkpage , mentioning the use of any socks or RFC, if he was found to be using socks, it would mention so there or Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser.. it doesn't. Case still stands.

Is Tony aware that you are using his name claiming non-existant cases against a random anon? - Deathrocker 18:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use my talk page to argue with other users. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Assistance Please

OK here is a CLEAR attack against myself on the check user section by Leyasu, and I'm requesting your assistance.

You wonder why it is hard to assume good faith with this user, Leyasu is claiming here that there is an ArbCom case against myself for using socks, vandalism and harrasment, this is SLANDER. I DEMAND, as an admin you do your job and take action.

He also claims that I've used anons on the ArbCom board in the case , where its clear when you view the history of the ArbCom board that I have only edited using this name. I don't use sockpuppets.

Leyasu is in CLEAR violation of his personal attacks parole there and I'm requesting you do something about it. - 08:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathrocker (talk • contribs)

Deathrocker Blackmailing And Harassing Me

Deahtrocker has admitted to using a sockpuppet to bait me into violating parole . I provided a sockpuppet of the user User:Mike5193 who has been vandalising my talk page with a final warning notice , after admin Snowflake and Tony had warned them for violating WP:NPA, WP:SOCK and WP:VANDAL. Deathrocker has sinced inadvertently admitted to owning all the accounts after i authored a check user on the matter . Now Deathrocker is demanding i am banned for violation of my parole, and claims that his sockpuppetry is acceptable because i violated parole . Despite Sceptre's warning , Deathrocker has ignored it and continues to deface the Arbirittion board through blanking sections of my statement so the sentences no longer say what i wrote, and is following every edit i make to the word harrasing and threatening me that if i do not drop from the arbirrition case he will have me banned for parole violation , , . Im sorry Idont, but something needs to be done as this is getting stressfull, and im afraid to take a Wikibreak in case i miss something important with the ArbCase. Ley Shade 08:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Again this user is spaming multiple admins with the same message, as you requested not to argue on your page... I will respect that and just link you to the reply I gave to these faux claims and personal attacks against myself, diffs are provided as to why the claims are untrue and that this is defemation of character; - Deathrocker 08:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved party: I suggest actually checking the links Ley Shade provides. Most of them do not show what he claims they show. For example, the first one does mention having used a sockpuppet, but does not by any stretch of the imagination say that this had the purpose, or even the effect, of baiting Leyasu into violating parole. In fact it specifically denies being the anon who did that. (To say nothing of Leyasu's refusal to take responsibility for his own actions.) PurplePlatypus 01:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

Whats the rules regarding users blanking their talk pages of warnings from other users and admins regarding various policy violations?? Ley Shade 00:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #3

Is This Vandalism?

One of the users believed to be part of the sock farm of IP'S on the CoB article has consistantly blanked sections of the article they 'dislike'. Originally some admins thought this was a content dispute, but seemed to of misjudged the reasoning behind the edits.

Recently i messaged the user with a warning , explaining they were violating policy. I then returned to yourself to ask about the rules for this . Afeter your reply i went back and reverted the users talk page on the basis of what you said . They recverted again, , And again .

During this time i also spoke to Deathness from Ze Projecto, and we discerned that diffs for the Children Of Bodom article would be good. So i provided them , quickly editing the infobox after (I bodged the formatting). Ironically, another similar IP with only one edit to those found in the sock farm before arrived, to delete the cited information , which i then warned them for and reverted .

As such i want to know where things stand when a user found to be member of a sock farm is blanking their talk page of reverts? And what happens when IPS similar to those found in a sock farm emerge to vandalise the same article as the sock farm was used to war on? Ley Shade 15:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 20:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL OK I WONT VANDALIZE ANYMORE.

OOPS THATS A LIE. WHAT I MEANT TO SAY IS THAT I WILL GO GET A NEW IP ADDRESS AND DO IT AGAIN.

KTHX BYE.

User:Mhking

Thanks for the revert on my user page. I appreciate it --Mhking 02:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Bodom

The anons have just admitted to being the same person, and have just admitted to vandalising the article even though all the positions have diffs . Now i ask for something to be done, as this is a clear violation of WP:VANDAL, WP:CITE and WP:SOCK. Ley Shade 12:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)