User talk:Idont Havaname/Archive 005

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...  Dei zio  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,  Dei zio  21:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Received and understood, wasn't quite aware of the nature / depth of the dispute. Nice,  Dei zio  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 (talk) 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 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. --Cel es tianpower háblame 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 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 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)

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)

Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker
Hello,

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