Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker

message: 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  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"  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) 
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)
replies: text: Tawker was given admin powers on April 10 (his RfA) Will (E@) T 11:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Deathrocker]]

message: 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) 
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)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: 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  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  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"  and been uncivil to people , 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)
replies: text: Tawker was given admin powers on April 10 (his RfA) Will (E@) T 11:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: 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 , so I recuse as clerk.
Leyasu claims that he has been impersonated, and there is some circumstantial evidence to support this .   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 .
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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Tony Sidaway]]

message: ====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, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
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, , .
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 . Immediatly the user went back to vandalisng the page starting another revert war, using the edit summaries for personal attacks, , , , , , , , , .
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 , . This was a bad veiling though as the user never merged the articles, and instead redirected Goth Music to Goth Rock instead .
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. , , , . 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 , the edit war is on these diffs, , , , , , , , , , , , .
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.
====Second Ban By Sceptre====
====Gothic Metal====
The anon reverted the revert on the article which Deathrocker performed after he was unbanned after 12 hours .
Deathrocker reverted it, claiming the newbie as a sock puppet, yet offered no proof .
The anon reverted this noting that Deathrocker was biting noobs .
Deathrocker also persisted in a revert war on Gothic Metal, violating 3RR here as well , 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,, , .
====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' , .
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, , , , , , , .
Despite all the reverting, the user Loudenvier said that Deathrocker was POV pushing and starting a revert war on a featured article, .
Another user noted that Deathrocker was violting WP:NPOV, as well, .
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, .
====Admittance To Baiting Into Violating 1RR====
Here Deathrocker admits to pushing myself to violate my parole so he can have me banned from Wikipedia, .
====Userpage Vandalism====
Deathrocker also attemped to vandalise comments on Admin Sceptre's talk page, , due to Sceptre having previously banned Deathrocker for his serial violations of policy across articles.
Deathrocker also vandalised my user page (Leyasu), .. 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, . 
After Sceptre had removed it, Deathrocker readded it, claiming everyone was 'vandalising', .
====Threatening Admins====
After being blocked by admin Sceptre for a period of four days, the user Deathrocker chose to request an Unblock .
This was answered nicely by Rory096 telling Deathrocker he wasnt able to get an unblock without a reason, .
Deathrocker responced by Wikilawyering on the 3 Revert Rule policy of Wikipedia, and accusing admin Sceptre of abusing his administrator powers for blocking him .
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 . Rory also seconded this, pointing out it was Deathrockers seventh ban for 3RR in a month and the extended block was justified .
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.
Deathrocker refuted this, Wikilarywering and accusing Rory and Tawker of abusing their administrator powers, readding the unblock tag, . 
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, .
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, .
Tawker then went on to tell Deathrocker that making personal attacks at the Admins wasnt going to get him an unblock either, .
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, .
Deathrocker didnt learn from this and continued Wikilawyering and making personal attacks, now directing this behaviour at admin Essjay, .
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', .
Admin Freakofnature then reverted the removel per policy, .
Deathrocker then reverted admin Freakofnature, claiming vandalism and abuse of administrator powers by admin Freak, .
The admin reverted this again, .
Deathrocker then reverted again, claiming he is allowed to 3RR on his talk page, and that Freak was abusing admin powers,.
Freak didnt respond and just reverted again, .
Deahtrocker then reverted again, removing the information to try for another Unblock attempt, .
Sceptre reverted this, , which Deathrocker reverted again, .
Freak reverted, , Deathrocker pursued a revert war while claiming he should be unbanned from his serial 3RR ban, .
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, , , , , , .
====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 .
Deathrocker also spent time setting up a complaint about me on the ANI board, making personal attacks including its time to pull the plug . When i posted a response, , Deathrocker proceeded to make personal attacks at me [, 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 , warning him to stop being incivil.
After this Deathrocker went and then tried the same thing the AE board, .
====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 , 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", . 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Leyasu]]

message: Deathrocker has user his comment space the ArbCom case to make personal attacks against both myself and Admin Scepte , 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", . 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)
thread_title: [[WP:NPA|Personal Attacks]] And [[WP:LAWYER|Wikilawyering]] On ArbCom

message: This is regarding untruths ... 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  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)
thread_title: Reply to claims by Leyasu Pt.1

message: *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 .. 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 ... 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)
thread_title: Reply to claims by Leyasu, Pt 2

message: 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 ... (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  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 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 
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)
thread_title: Attempt by Leyasu to vandalise Arbitration board

message: 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 ...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" ... 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. 
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)
thread_title: Update

message: 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)
thread_title:  Temporary action taken by Sceptre 

message: The incident THIS case is about happened on 03:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was responsible for putting the RfC (which I notice was not certified) into the case, when I opened it.  I apologise if this was an error.  I suggest that anyone who thinks it may be of relevance to the current case submit it on the evidence page.   --Tony Sidaway 12:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I said it was delisted, should've put uncertified. Will (E@) T 18:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Sceptre's revert

message: 1.  Leyasu is currently serving a 1-month block.  How should we go about having him post any new evidence he has?  (I'm not sure if he has any or not.)
2.  I will probably have more evidence to post, and I will have suggestions to make in the Workshop.  However, I've been very busy during the time since this case opened.  My schedule will probably open up considerably by Tuesday.  Could we have a few more days to post evidence before the Voting stage starts?
--Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've finished posting the evidence.  I went ahead and posted it in Findings of Fact since I think I could keep it concise and detailed (and I felt that the Leyasu arbitration case did not have enough findings of fact).  There's probably too much there, so you can just take whichever ones you find useful, trim them down as necessary, etc.  Similarly, I've posted a bunch of proposed principles for this case in the workshop.  Sorry for the delay; I've been sick for a few days. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 questions about evidence 

message: Just in case I'm not talking to a wall on this page:
In this edit, an anonymous IP from a range that Leyasu has typically been using signed one of its earlier posts as Leyasu.  Although this IP has not made edits that would break Leyasu's revert parole, editing while blocked still defeats the purpose of a block.  We do need further findings of fact and possibly more remedies in this case with regards to block evasion.
--Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leyasu might be evading his block again. 

message: : This was a request for clarification on Requests for arbitration.  I'm copying it to the Leyasu and Deathrocker arbitrations.
: For the Arbitration Committee.  --Tony Sidaway 02:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update I am not at all convinced that the revertions performed by several anon IPs were in fact Deathrocker. However, I still think it would be useful to clarify this issue, even if it is not immediately pressing. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does revert parole apply to edits of banned users? 

message: :Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification. Picaroon (t) 01:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find no reference in the arbitration decision to any time limitation. There may be other issues relating to this block that are discussed on the user's talkpage in connection with his original unblock request, but they can be addressed at the administrator level if the user wishes to pursue the matter. Newyorkbrad 14:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that? I disagree with the 1 year block for the reason that the original remedy did not provide the escalating clause. (The Enforcement section did =.=) However, I do believe that he is on revert parole indefinitely if a date wasn't mentioned (unless someone willing to clarify this?) - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, Dmcdevit (who was on the ArbCom at the time of that decision) said that it was probably unlimited duration if a date wasn't mentioned. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 13:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time limit?