Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

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, [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35].

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, [36], [37].

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 [38]. Immediatly the user went back to vandalisng the page starting another revert war, using the edit summaries for personal attacks, [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47].

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 [48], [49]. This was a bad veiling though as the user never merged the articles, and instead redirected Goth Music to Goth Rock instead [50].

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. [51], [52], [53], [54]. 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 [55], the edit war is on these diffs, [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67].

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 [68].

Deathrocker reverted it, claiming the newbie as a sock puppet, yet offered no proof [69].

The anon reverted this noting that Deathrocker was biting noobs [70].

Deathrocker also persisted in a revert war on Gothic Metal, violating 3RR here as well [71], 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, [72], [73], [74].

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' [75], [76].

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, [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]. Despite all the reverting, the user Loudenvier said that Deathrocker was POV pushing and starting a revert war on a featured article, [84]. Another user noted that Deathrocker was violting WP:NPOV, as well, [85]. 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, [86].

Admittance To Baiting Into Violating 1RR

Here Deathrocker admits to pushing myself to violate my parole so he can have me banned from Wikipedia, [87].

Userpage Vandalism

Deathrocker also attemped to vandalise comments on Admin Sceptre's talk page, [88], due to Sceptre having previously banned Deathrocker for his serial violations of policy across articles.

Deathrocker also vandalised my user page ( Leyasu), [89].. 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, [90].

After Sceptre had removed it, Deathrocker readded it, claiming everyone was 'vandalising', [91].

Threatening Admins

After being blocked by admin Sceptre for a period of four days, the user Deathrocker chose to request an Unblock [92].

This was answered nicely by Rory096 telling Deathrocker he wasnt able to get an unblock without a reason, [93].

Deathrocker responced by Wikilawyering on the 3 Revert Rule policy of Wikipedia, and accusing admin Sceptre of abusing his administrator powers for blocking him [94].

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 [95]. Rory also seconded this, pointing out it was Deathrockers seventh ban for 3RR in a month and the extended block was justified [96].

Deathrocker responded again by trying to Wikilwayer [97].

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 [98].

Deathrocker refuted this, Wikilarywering and accusing Rory and Tawker of abusing their administrator powers, readding the unblock tag, [99].

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, [100].

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, [101].

Tawker then went on to tell Deathrocker that making personal attacks at the Admins wasnt going to get him an unblock either, [102].

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, [103].

Deathrocker didnt learn from this and continued Wikilawyering and making personal attacks, now directing this behaviour at admin Essjay, [104].

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', [105].

Admin Freakofnurture then reverted the removel per policy, [106].

Deathrocker then reverted admin Freakofnurture, claiming vandalism and abuse of administrator powers by admin Freak, [107].

The admin reverted this again, [108].

Deathrocker then reverted again, claiming he is allowed to 3RR on his talk page, and that Freak was abusing admin powers, [109].

Freak didnt respond and just reverted again, [110].

Deahtrocker then reverted again, removing the information to try for another Unblock attempt, [111].

Sceptre reverted this, [112], which Deathrocker reverted again, [113].

Freak reverted, [114], Deathrocker pursued a revert war while claiming he should be unbanned from his serial 3RR ban, [115].

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, [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121].

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 [122].

Deathrocker also spent time setting up a complaint about me on the ANI board, making personal attacks including its time to pull the plug [123]. When i posted a response, [124], Deathrocker proceeded to make personal attacks at me [ [125], 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 [126], warning him to stop being incivil.

After this Deathrocker went and then tried the same thing the AE board, [127].

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 [128], 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", [129]. 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) reply

Deathrocker went on to make more personal attacks including "it is a ridiculous claim on your part, and one that is of course false" [130].

After apologising to Deathrocker for coming across uncivil [131], and asking him not to make personal attacks [132], 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" [133].

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 [134], [135], [136]. Tony responded and noted that Deathrocker was attempting to bait me into violating my parole, and that i was to avoid responding [137]. 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 [138] 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 [139] 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 [140].

After this Sceptre warned Deatrocker for being uncivil [141], however Deathrocker does not appear to care, continuing defacing my Statement and making Personal Attacks, [142] [143].

After this Deathrocker then proceeded to again make more personal attacks, [144] [145].

Deathrocker has made continious personal attacks using the RFA board, as shown in this edit [146].

List Of Personal Attacks

• "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')

• "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)

• "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)

• "As recent as today; Leyasu bit a noob". [I provided the user with a final warning http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)

Deathrocker Taking Advantage Of My Ban

Deathrocker hadnt started editing the article Heavy Metal except to change things that i had done. Deathrocker also ignored WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. A poll was done a while back for various articles on how to deal with uncitable and sceptical information by a project that both me and Deathrocker are part of. Over 30 people took part in the poll; a poll Deathrocker was invited to take part in. The polls results where then endorsed. Deathrocker decided that consensus and sources do not count without his permission, and then when i renforced the poll results, Deathrocker appeared to claim ownership over the article.

Deathrocker claims i blanked large parts of the the article' in correction, what i did was renforce the section that a consensus of over 30 people came to. Here is a list of every edit i made, [147], [148], [149]. The only exception to this was when i edited for minor POV and neutrality issues that the use of some words and typing style causes [150].

Wesley commented that the Project doesnt act as an authority, and that the poll (Which Wesley was part of and endorsed) was supposed to only be for the footer [151]. Indeed the poll wasnt exactly perfect as people were trying to find there footing with running the project, but its intentions were pure.

This hasnt been the only incident ive had with Deathrocker while being banned though. Deathhrocker repeatedly violated WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:3RR and WP:CITE on Speed Metal and List of heavy metal genres as well since i was banned; two articles i have been heavily involved with for a long time. Refusing to provide neutral wording on subjects on the basis of it being me who asked him to follow policy and reverting edits because he doesnt like me, [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157].

After trying to discuss it on the talk page, i got told 'You dont know anything' and 'your just a troll'. All attempts at explaining the problem were ignored and i was flamed with Personal Attacks until Wesley stepped in [158], [159], [160], [161].

Despite trying to explain to Deathrocker that using words such as Supreme, Fantastic, and Amazing are inheritantly POV, he just hurled Personal Attacks at me. I even posted telling him not to start a fight considering his ArbCom case [162]. I told him that my actions violating Bans and Parole shouldnt encourage him to do it; advice that he refused to listen to.

Deathrocker also stalked me on the Speed Metal article. Low and behold, he just decided to revert every edit made by a member of WP:HMM after a dispute with them [163], [164], [165], [166], [167]. Deathrocker also used a ploy he uses a lot that is shown in previous evidence by me; That according to himself, marking reverts as Minor allows him to openly violate WP:3RR and that banning him for it is abuse of admin powers.

Of note, Deathrocker has made claim that numerous people have reverted me. In the last 14 days of this being posted, only one user has reverted any edit i have made to articles, and that user has been Deathrocker.

Another instance has shown Deathrocker using a similar guise to his Minor edits; in which he labels reverts as minor on the basis it allows him to violate WP:3RR (often followed by extensive Wikilawyering). In this case, Deathrocker has decided that it is ok to violate WP:NPOV and WP:CITE by refusing to provide sources and respect policy by putting 'clean up' in edit summaries, as can be seen here [168].

Taken from Deathrocker's evidence:

• He showed that he lacked knowledge of NWOBHM

According to Deathrocker, over 30 users of WP:HMM and over 10 anons also lack knowledge of it for not aggreing with him [169].

• Leyasu still persisted in removing the sourced info, that another user had added previously

The only person in the whole history of the article to add it was Deathrocker, multiple times without a source after multiple people reverted him before i started doing it [170].

• Iron Maiden for an example, where he attempted to blank any NWOBHM references

I removed it from the Infobox. Its on the Cross References section of the article, and a strategy for article clean up by WP:HMM (In accordance with FA ruling for getting all the articles to FA standard) was not to have Cross Refs on Infoboxes. Sadly, Deathrocker disagrees with both the project and the FA team.

• Regardless of the fact that I've been working on those articles before he even joined Wikipedia

His first edit to the article was recorded during my ban for a month. Thats hardly since i even joined Wikipedia.

• If you look back at the articles history, he has also done the same attacking anybody who has attempted to clean up the article, or discussed on its talk page

And if the block log is checked, they where all blocked for violations of WP:NPOV and WP:NPA and most of them where suspected sockpuppets of Deathrocker.

Deathrocker also recently attempted to deface my evidence by violating the ArbCom policys and posting comments into my Evidence. After moving them to his section, he decided to repost them [171]. So i moved them back, and he vandalised my evidence again [172]. After this Deathrocker then protected the page in an attempt to stop me posting Evidence [173], and then continued on to blank pieces of my evidence [174]. Deathrocker then attempted to blank over half of my evidence from the page in violation of WP:VANDAL and again attempted to prevent me from posting Evidence [175]. Deathrocker then vandalised my evidence again, blanking it from the ArbCom board claiming it was his right to do so because im blocked [176]. Deathrocker was then warned by admin Kevin Breitenstein [177], despite this warning, Deathrocker once again vandalised my evidence [178]. After this, i explained to Deathrocker that posting in my evidence is vandalism [179]. A short time after, Deathrocker creates a section in my evidence claiming it as 'counter evidence' [180]. After moving the section to his evidence [181] he then claims i vandalised his evidence because i removed his comments from my evidence again; Leyasu continued to vandalise my evidence once more [182] moving it around although it was not even in his section.

After this i tried to tell Deathrocker that starting fights with people, especially me, is not helpfull to improving articles; That it is better to discuss changes and work with his fellow Wikipedians rather than try to bully them, and intimidate them with Wikilawyering [183]. Immediatly after, Deathrocker changed what i said and tagged it 'Threats by Leyasu' in an attempt to incriminate me for saying things i have not said, also calling it vandalism in the edit summary [184].

Deathrocker assumes bad faith on my part for requesting arbitration

Deathrocker tells me I am violating WP:DR by requesting arbitration [185], saying I did not try mediation. In fact, the RfAR template says:

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried (If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)

—  Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration

I indeed thought mediation to be fruitless as Mediation is more article-slanted than user conduct slanted. Will ( ^E_@) T 09:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Sceptre unable to follow Wikipedia policies

Past

Sceptre has in the past shown an inability to follow Wikipedia policies. He has previously admitted to being bias against me [186]. And has shown it in his administrative actions;

I violated the 3RR, Sceptre went on to violate the official Wikipedia policies stated clearly in WP:3RR by blocking me for four days [187].. three days longer than the maximum ban allowed to be imposed for such an offence. [188] As this was a clear abuse of powers, I contested the block on my user page and was blocked by another minor; Sean Black (who Sceptre describes as a "friend" on his user page) [189], for a further month...

While this block was inplace, Sceptre took it upon himself to violate the official Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policies, by bringing up an Arbitration case against me, regarding the 3RR violation, [190] without attempting any discussion methods, meditation, or anything of the like, which is needed before bringing up an Arb case; this case was thrown out by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and rejected. [191]. Sceptre was told by one member of the committee to leave it, and let me serve out my ban time.

Though Sceptre did not leave it at that, he continued to harass me during my ban, by requesting that I make a comment via email (the request for comment) [192].. as the case had already been rejected, and I was serving my ban, I saw no need to comment and replied telling him that I was "done with the dispute", he said "alright" to this in an email reply.. it was resolved; Leyasu also saw no need to comment on the RfC either.

Current

While Leyasu was serving a ban, an IP similar to ones he had been found guilty (by Jayjg) at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser of using [193], began reverting articles that Leyasu had been in disputes on, to last version by Leyasu before he was banned [194]

I reported this on the Incidents board... where Sceptre took it upon himself to violate Wikipedia:Dispute resolution once again, I had an Arbitration case brought against myself, for reporting with reasonable evidence what was probably a sockpuppet.

Sceptre didn't bother to message me to tell me why he thought me reporting this asking for assistance was a problem, he also did not attempt RfC on this incident or meditation (something required as stated in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution before coming to ArbCom)... he abused his administrative powers to bring a violative case against somebody for the second time, who in the past he admits to been bias against. [195]

This shows that A) This case is in violation of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution something which I made very clear TWICE, while the Arbitration case was running [196] [197]

B) Sceptre has proven either a lack of knowledge regarding Wikipedia policies or a willingness to violate them to suit his own admitted "bias". [198]

Note

Also, I haven't once broke the 3RR since my block for it by Sceptre in early March, this is proof that since returning from my block I have abided by Wikipedia policies 100%.

Counter evidence to claims by Leyasu

To quote an uninvolved party; PurplePlatypus, "I suggest actually checking the links Ley Shade provides. Most of them do not show what he claims they show." [199]

Part I

The claims presented by Leyasu, from 1.1 to 1.3, have nothing to do with the current case which was put fourth by Sceptre regarding me reporting suspected socks. [200] It is actually two month old claims, which were used by Leyasu on a subpage [201] in an Arbitration case against me, which was rejected around two months ago. [202]

This case was rejected as the evidence Leyasu claimed, was proved to be false, [203], my evidence with suitable diffs that proved the accusations wrong, can still can be read at; Bringing Down The Shrine.

Part II

The second part provided by Leyasu is not so much any form of "Evidence", as a one sided commentary of a dispute which occurred during the Arbitration case hearing... the full version of this (including both sides) has already been moved by Tony Sidaway to the talkpage [204]

You can see my replies to that there already; [205]

This tackles nothing in regards to the reason I was brought to Arbitration by the self-confessed “bias” admin Sceptre; as stated by Sceptre, it was in regards to reporting a suspected sock puppet [206]

Incase it wasn’t clear enough the first 1,000 times I said it; the case is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, the administrator did not attempt any other means of dispute resolution in regards to this case, which is stated must happen first; no meditation, no request for comment, Sceptre didn’t even bother to tell me why he thought me reporting a suspected sock was a problem, he just took it straight to Arbitration.

A Truce was offered to Leyasu

Since the Arbitration case, I have took resolving any problems between Leyasu and myself into my own hands... I offered Leyasu a truce on May 6th [207]. In an attempt to stop any uncivilties between us, and suggested we attempt to avoid each other but if working on the same article; to do so in a civil manner. As arguing gets neither of us anywhere. [208]

To date; since offering the truce, I have had no problems with this user since. The truce seems to be working positively. - Deathrocker 22:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Counter-evidence to claims made by Leyasu

In the so called "Deathrocker Taking Advantage Of My Ban" section. (laughable)

Actually check out the diffs Leyasu has provided, as always what he is claiming isn't contained within the links. (Especially with regards to "personal attacks", and supposedly "users stepping in", which are lies). He is also violating wikipedia Blocking policy, by using anonymous IP's to edit articles (inclusing this one) while blocked, (currently serving a 3 month block) he has been warned to stop this by admins Idont Havaname & Tony Sideaway as recent as yesterday, [209] yet persisted only hours after his current block began. [210]

Leyasu has recently been blanking large parts of articles without discussion on their talkpages, most prominently the Heavy Metal music article. He claimed that because he is a member of some unofficial fan group ( WP:HMM), that it is OK for him to blank large parts of articles, without using the discussion page and that it was "policy" [211]... regardless of the fact that the unofficial fan-group WP:HMM is not "policy" and no other members from there backed up Leyasu's actions or claims. Infact WesleyDodds & Maxcap sided against Leyasu's claims on the talkpage [212]

Various users including myself, WesleyDodds [213] and numerous others reverted his blanking. And on the discussion page, all the users agreed that whatever "yes, no" poll Leyasu claims allegedy took place in a fan group months ago, was not relevent they were never discussed on the actual articles talkpage, [214] claims that I was "invited" to join some poll, is a complete lie.... such a poll that Leyasu described is actually against Wikipedia policy as per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Previously Leyasu had commited vandalism by blanking sourced information on List of heavy metal genres page (while he was blocked I might add), where he continued to remove information which has multiple sources. [215].... I started a discusion on the talkpage asking what his problem was, [216]. He showed that he lacked knowledge of NWOBHM so myself and WesleyDodds attempted to explain it to him, after he was edcuated on the genre he was not familiar with, Leyasu still persisted in removing the sourced info, that another user had added previously. And even went as far as to attack NWOBHM band pages. Iron Maiden for an example, where he attempted to blank any NWOBHM references, his blanking was reverted by Prodigenous Zee. [217]

Leyasu personally attacked me on the heavy metal articles (which he continues to do so on here), claiming that I'm "stalking him" by editing it, regardless of the fact that I've been working on those articles before he even joined Wikipedia.

The speed metal article has been in limbo for quite some time, it has a "clean-up" tag on it. So I attempted a clean-up (before Leyasu had even edited it recently) though looking at the history he has months ago apparently and he is even bias against it claiming it is "not a genre" [218]... the clean-up was working from information already present in the article coupled with my familiarity on the subject, [219], Leyasu instantly showed up and claimed I was making "violations" by cleaning the article up. [220]

If you look back at the articles history, he has also done the same attacking anybody who has attempted to clean up the article, or discussed on its talk page, including (diff provided for Leyasu's attack on them) Pasajero, [221], Ryouga, [222] Wisdom89 [223], Naconkantari [224], etc, etc.

- Deathrocker 01:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply

It states in WP:3RR that "For the purposes of counting reverts, these are excluded: removing posts made by a banned or blocked user".. it is not "wikilawyering" it is officially stated policy that I'm following, you are a blocked us

Although you are not currently allowed to edit articles, feel free to suggest which parts of the article you feel need citations, and I'll add "citation needed" tags to the apropriate parts. I suggest you refrain from making personal attacks first though. - Deathrocker 03:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply

In a further attempt to cover his tracks of attacking various other users; Leyasu claimed that I was "suspected" of been various other users as sockpuppets on Speed metal who edited months before I ever edited it. This is another complete lie, the numerous users continue to edit in other articles which I have no interest in, Leyasu has a history of claiming people are "suspected sockpuppets" in situations like this and then been proved wrong by check user... have a look at the archives for example... Leyasu has however been found guilty in the past of using socks (and continues to do so even today with Leyasu1

Note- Using an anonymous IP, Leyasu vandalised information put in by me on this page, blanking it several times in an attempt to cover his tracks, making personal attacks in the edit summary.

The page was semi-protect due to this. Leyasu then created a sockpuppet; Leyasu1 to evade his block, this is a violation of wikipedia Blocking policy and WP:SOCK. (which has now been blocked by an admin)

Leyasu continued to vandalise my evidence once more [225] moving it around although it was not even in his section, Kevin Breitenstein (who is not an admin) advised me on my talkpage to seek assistance from an admin due to Leyasu's continued vandalism [226] and use of sockpuppets to evade a block. - Deathrocker 03:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Leyasu then used my talkpage to voice an errie threat against me, [227] he proclaimed "yew do not want to revert me, I don't lose revert wars", he then went on to brag about the fact that he has no problem using sockpuppets while blocked "yew act like me being banned from using an accout on this thing is the end of my world, it isnt." - Deathrocker 04:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Since I'm very busy for about the next week, I won't be able to present all of my evidence until after that. Instead, you can just refer to my statement in this case for the time being. -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 18:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Update: I condensed the rest of my evidence and posted it on the Workshop page yesterday as proposed findings of fact. -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 20:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Leyasu blocked for 1 month for violating revert parole

Leyasu ( talk · contribs) violated his revert parole for roughly the seventh time on May 9 when he made two reverts to Children of Bodom in a 21-hour period; the details are given in this posting to WP:AE. [228] (He said the reverts were made under an anon [229], but they were from his user name.) Since I felt the WP:AE page was being very underwatched given its serious nature, I wanted to make sure this violation was enforced properly; so I contacted Tony Sidaway directly requesting that he enforce the revert parole as he saw fit. [230] (I thought that Tony would make a judicious decision on the matter since he was familiar with the case, and that he wouldn't just give Leyasu a one-year ban at a time when it looked like Leyasu was trying hard to reform.) He told me to post my request on the appropriate forum, so I then made the WP:AE posting. In response, Johnleemk ( talk · contribs) blocked Leyasu for a month on May 10. [231] Johnleemk said it could have been a longer block, but he believed Leyasu could still reform. [232]

Leyasu being incivil in response to the block

Leyasu initially apologized for violating revert parole, saying that it was accidental. [233] However, after Johnleemk replied, Leyasu replied to Johnleemk's comments in an extremely and unabashedly incivil way and also accused Johnleemk of incivility:

• "Well havent i got stuck with a complete bitch for an admin, well fuck it, if your not going to be civil neither am i. I made a mistake, so deal with it. If i was going to violate my fucking parole, id of done it in some grandeous and theatrical manner" [234]
• "Ill remember your invicility for future reference." [235]

(The links for Johnleemk's comments are here: [236] [237] [238])

Leyasu evading block

Leyasu went through with his promise and started editing from the IP User:81.157.83.176. I blocked this IP for the duration of the block set by Johnleemk. I gave three of the diffs that showed the edits were coming from Leyasu in the comment I made on that anon's talk page. [239] (I had told Leyasu before the May 9 revert parole violation that I would not block him, but I thought that the block which Johnleemk set should be upheld and was not sure if anyone else would enforce it. All of the edits from that IP are to pages that Leyasu normally edits, and the anon signed several of the posts he made on talk pages as Leyasu.)

-- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 18:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Leyasu continuing to edit regularly under anons while blocked (June 4-9)

Leyasu's 1-month block expired on June 10, but from June 4 to June 9 he was editing under several IPs (some of the edits: [240] [241] [242]) I warned him with this message. [243]

Another IP he has used is given here: [244]

On June 12 he said that Deathrocker was "stalking" him and "POV pushing", and that he would continue using anons to combat that. [245]

Tony Sidaway has said that he will recommend that Leyasu be placed on general probation if he ever edits again while blocked. [246]

-- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 18:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Leyasu violates revert parole on Heavy metal music after returning from his block; Deathrocker claims page ownership

The day that Leyasu returned from his 1-month block, he violated revert parole again on Heavy metal music. Leyasu reverted Deathrocker's edits to the page [247]; then Deathrocker reverted Leyasu with the edit summary "1. In your dreams, I've been editing this article for the past year... 2. See talkpage for discussion. kthnx" [248]. Maxcap ( talk · contribs) made some further edits to the page, and Leyasu then reverted [249] the edits by both Maxcap and Deathrocker back to his preferred version of the page [250]. (All of these diffs are also in my post here to WP:AE: [251])

-- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 05:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Just to clear this up. In the previous edit summary by Leyasu, he claimed that I was "stalking him" by editing the article, an article I've been editing for a long time. That was what the comment was in regards to, no "ill" was meant by it, just the dismissal of a ridiculous claim.

Also, I haven't "claimed ownership" of the article...

I'm fully aware that everybody is welcome to edit it... check the talk page, If I thought I owned the article, why would I be encouraging/starting discussion, about any problems with it? [252]

He was blanking large parts of the article without discussing it first, which is stated in the info box of that page should be done.. as the parts he was blanking were contraversial.

This diff shows that on the articles talkpage, two other users Maxcap ( talk · contribs) & WesleyDodds ( talk · contribs) agreed that the large sections Leyasu blanked should be discussed before been removed. [253] Only Leyasu seemed to think that blanking it was OK. - Deathrocker 13:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC) reply

First assertion

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring". Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring

Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks". Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

First assertion

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring

Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

First assertion

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring

Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.