Looking over recent revisions of Talk:Gothic metal, I saw that Arm and Loudenvier also made several comments each on the talk page since the dispute case. (Loudenvier had some posts in the most recent archive, Talk:Gothic metal/Archive 5.) Shouldn't they know about this case too? Would it be fine for me to tell them, or would that count as spamming the talk page? -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 23:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this goes here, but it is probably of interest, after been blocked for 48 hours, for content disputing with me, a suspicious IP appeared reverting all edits I made to previous versions by you guessed it; Leyasu, two of them in articles which Leyasu was blocked for breaking parole on.
See; [1] for more information.
- Deathrocker 17:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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 02:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Leyasu has been indef banned under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker for persistently violating his paroles with sockpuppets. He appears to be continuing to edit music-related articles from a series of British Telecom IP addresses. Deathrocker has been reverting these edits, frequently also using IP addresses rather than logging in. I know that reverting simple vandalism generally does not fall under the one revert per day limit; what about reverting edits from IP addresses suspected of being a banned editor? (Additional current discussion at Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Update I am not at all convinced that the revertions performed by several anon IPs were in fact Deathrocker. However, I still think it would be useful to clarify this issue, even if it is not immediately pressing. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I would let whoever is reverting Leyasu continue. I know I don't want that chore. Fred Bauder 14:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Looking over recent revisions of Talk:Gothic metal, I saw that Arm and Loudenvier also made several comments each on the talk page since the dispute case. (Loudenvier had some posts in the most recent archive, Talk:Gothic metal/Archive 5.) Shouldn't they know about this case too? Would it be fine for me to tell them, or would that count as spamming the talk page? -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 23:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this goes here, but it is probably of interest, after been blocked for 48 hours, for content disputing with me, a suspicious IP appeared reverting all edits I made to previous versions by you guessed it; Leyasu, two of them in articles which Leyasu was blocked for breaking parole on.
See; [1] for more information.
- Deathrocker 17:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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 02:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Leyasu has been indef banned under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker for persistently violating his paroles with sockpuppets. He appears to be continuing to edit music-related articles from a series of British Telecom IP addresses. Deathrocker has been reverting these edits, frequently also using IP addresses rather than logging in. I know that reverting simple vandalism generally does not fall under the one revert per day limit; what about reverting edits from IP addresses suspected of being a banned editor? (Additional current discussion at Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Update I am not at all convinced that the revertions performed by several anon IPs were in fact Deathrocker. However, I still think it would be useful to clarify this issue, even if it is not immediately pressing. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I would let whoever is reverting Leyasu continue. I know I don't want that chore. Fred Bauder 14:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)