User:Daddy Kindsoul/BringingDownTheShrine

• Note: This subpage was previously used as counter-evidence in an Arbitration case against myself back in March 2006. The case against myself was unaymously rejected, thanks largely to the evidence provided on this page. It will be kept as an archive for future reference, I am also considering using it to log any trouble the user involved has given me and the community since.

Introduction
It would seem that Leyasu has a rather disturbing (IMO) obsession with me and has gone to the effort of dedicating a shrine or temple if you will to yours truly; the Temple of Defamation... in which several unfounded attacks are made against myself, in an attempt to defame my character and good name.

Thus, this subpage acts as counter-evidence to claims made in the shrine. Burning it to the ground, metaphorically speaking, allowing the truth to provail.

Notice

This is a Wikipedia user page and as such can only be edited by the user who the page is for, and admins. Any other edits are vandalism, and is a Wikipedia offence.

The Old Testement: Arbitration Counter-Evidence (March 06)

Defamation #1: Deathrocker Commiting Serial Vandalism And Personal Attacks

I have compiled a list below of seperate incidents that invovle Deathrocker. Some of theese are old news, some have just past, and one happened concurrently immediatly after the user was unblocked. I feel unfailry blamnmed by as an instigator and trouble maker, and so i am offering proof to my case, as so i am not unfairly blamed solely for something, when i am only half the problem in the matter. I also wish to show that Deathrocker is a serial problem user, and kindness in shortening his ban was completely refuted by his deliberance in POV Pushing on articles while refusing to cite sources, and violating 3RR within hours of being unbanned. Ley Shade 21:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Truth #1: Leyasu commiting Serial POV pushing and twisting comments

A user who's behaviour is notorious on Wikipedia to the extent that they are already on ArbCom parole [1]is trying to say that I am a problem user?.... haha.

Leyasu claims every edit that isn't by him/her is "vandalism" or an "attackLOLOMG!1" something or another [2][3]. In the past administrators have told him, that such things are infact content disputes, not vandalism. This user also seems to think they own the article Gothic Metal violating his/her Arbcom ruling in numerous reverts, other than myself; RJN[4][5][6] has fallen victim to Leyasu's needless reverts, for example.

Even without the heated debates with me, Leyasu has already been in hot water, warring with Danterferno on the Gothic Metal article previously [7]... resulting in him/her been put on revert and personal attacks parole via Arbitration.

All one has to do is check the diffs provided by Leyasu in the shrine ("evidence") he/she created. 99% of them do not contain what he/she claims they do, such things as personal attacks, etc, do not actually appear in the diffs.. this is a very sneaky way of presuming the people judging the case, won't have the patience to check out so many diffs.

Defamation #2: 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, [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], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41].

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, [42], [43].

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 [44]. Immediatly the user went back to vandalisng the page starting another revert war, using the edit summaries for personal attacks, [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53].

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 [54], [55]. This was a bad veiling though as the user never merged the articles, and instead redirected Goth Music to Goth Rock instead [56].

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. [57], [58], [59], [60]. 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 [61], the edit war is on these diffs, [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73].

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.

Truth #2: Counter-Evidence and Correction of untruths

1. As you can see, there are many personal attacks in this section made by Leyasu, claiming there was "vandalism, trolling, etc" when that user was doing exactly the same thing, it was 50/50, you can't have an edit war with yourself can you?...

2. Blanking pages??... its my user page, If I choose to archieve my messages, I cam welcome to do so and it is within the boundries of offfical Wikiepdia policy. At the top of the talkpage it states clearly "Messages will be archives once read", which they are.

Most Wikipedians archieve their talkpages, it is non of Leyasu's business what I do with it, as you can see, the archives are easily accessable for people who wish to view it.

3. Personal attacks in edit summary? Has anybody actually clicked any of these diffs? Heres a preview "(Please reference any connections to metal subgenres before vandalising this article again, kthanks)" requesting references in a content dispute, and using please and thank you constitutes as a personal attack?... Leyasu enjoys lieing in about users in an attempt to defame their (in this case, my) character and to push their POV, this is a prime example of that.

4. Again these "edit wars" were 50/50, 50% Deathrocker, 50% Leyasu, (hense why we have both been banned in such incidents) numerous times Leyasu has refused to work on articles talkpages after requests in edit summaries and instead continued to revert war... and actually I said "please stop being a prick", not "you are a prick", as the behivour which was errupting at the time was prickish.

Defamation #3: Moi Dix Mois

Recently the user added an infobox to the article for the band Moi dix mois, [74]. I corrected some gramma and restored the genres to what they previously where, before Deathrocker changed them [75]. Deathrocker reverted this, marking the revert as minor [76]. After reverting their edit [77], i posted to Deathrocker on their talk page, making a polite request concering the article, aksing them not to start a revert war and to post to my talk page if they have a problem with my edits [78]. Deathrocker deleted this [79], and then went on to revert me, inciting a revert war and making personal attacks using the edit summary [80].

I reverted this, noting that i had asked him not to revert war, and noted id be informaing an admin [81]. He reverted me again, making yet more personal attacks in the edit summary [82]. I reverted this again with some neutral wording [83], which then a user seemingly in the intrest of ending the edit war changed it [84]. Deathrocker however immediatly went on to revert back to his copy, violating 3RR [85].

At this point, i reverted his version again, leaving the note that the neutral attempt was good, but wasnt in Wikipedia prose [86]. Deathrocker then went on to attack me on the Moi Dis Mois talk page calling me an idiot, [87], to which i responded [88], which he then went on to revert the Moi Dix Mois article calling me a troll 'unwilling to partake in discussion on the talk page' [89]. He has also attempted to edit what i have written to you, changing what i have written to insult me [90], which i reverted, noting the vandalism [91]. An anon made a revert back to the version by myself, for whatever reason they might have [92].

Deathrocker decided to revert this back to 'his' version, not marking the revert (the user has also been caught bragging that if he doesnt mark edits as a revert, they dont count towards 3RR), [93]. The anon reverted this, [94], and Deathrocker set about reverting this again, making a personal attack in the edit summary which bit the newbie in violation of WP:BITE, [95], accusing the editor of being a sock puppet (Deathrocker made the same claim about Admin Sceptre when Sceptre blocked us both for 3RR violations before). The anon again reverted this, [96], which Deathrocker went and violated 3RR for a second time in 24 hours, by reverting it again, [97].

These reverts persisted in violation of 3RR removing cited information, without any second thought on the basis that Deathrocker 'dislikes' gothic metal, and his claim that 'all anons on Wikipedia are socks of Leyasu', [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106]. After some period of time, Deathrocker violated Admin rules by enforcing a Protection himself during yet another revert, in an attempt to force his POV onto the article [107]. He then went on to make personal attacks at both the anon and myself on the talk page, [108].

Truth #3: Counter-Evidence and Correction of untruths

On this very same article (Moi dix Mois) Leyasu was also banned for grossly violating their parole of Arbitration, he was banned for 48 hours by Woohookitty[109]

As soon as he/she returned from the ban, he continued to edit war with me instantly.

1. Leyasu makes a clear lie in his claim; if I added the info box (which I did), there was no "previous" information in it to change. Leyasu however showed up and started changing this info box without reason.

2. Leyasu then posted some sarcastic comment on my page... although he was still pushing his own POV on the article.

3. After which an edit war ensued, between myself and Leyasu once more. flowersofnight showed up and edited a more neutral version, I opened a discussion on the Mois dix Mois talkpage to discussm flowersofnight joined and after discussing the newer edits, user:flowersofnight and I made a consenus, and agreed on her more neutral variation of the article, in the hope that it would defuse the situation and stop Leyasu's brutal vandalising.

For a long time, Leyasu refused to join the discussion on the talk page after been asked several times in the edit summaries to discuss his/her POV [110][111][112], after joining the discussion Leyasu then went on to continue to violate her/his 1RR parole and pushed on against consensus. To which flowersofnight then reported Leyasu for breaking parole. [113]

If you actually check the diffs for edit summaries to supposed "quotes" which Leyasu is claiming I made, you will find he is lieing as I did not say the things she is claims, he is known for minipulating words in favour of his own POV.

Leyasu claims I say that I "dislike Gothic Metal"... which is not true at all. As I have only ever stated that I actually liking some bands in that genre. [114]

Leysau claims that I said all annoymous IPs on Wikipedia are him; Not true, I said the ones who were revert warring on Gothic Metal, Heavy metal music, and Moi Dix Mois were him. On the account that their only edits, were made while Leyasu was blocked, and were reverting all the disputed articles to "last version by leyasu, see leyasu's comments" , this was not only noticed by me, as you can see it was first reported by flowersofnight here; [115].

Defamation #4: Gothic Metal

The anon reverted the revert on the article which Deathrocker performed after he was unbanned after 12 hours [116]. Deathrocker reverted it, claiming the newbie as a sock puppet, yet offered no proof [117]. The anon reverted this noting that Deathrocker was biting noobs [118]. Deathrocker also persisted in a revert war on Gothic Metal, violating 3RR here as well [119], 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,[120], [121], [122].

Truth #4: Counter-Evidence and Correction of untruths

The "anon" was suspected of been Leyasu (by numerous users, not just myself), who were reverting edits to "last version by Leyasu" while Leyasu was banned as seen and proof provided here; [123]

Leyasu later showed up and point blank refused to provide me with a reference for the part we were debating, as seen here Talk:Gothic_metal#Re:_Rozz_Williams_voice I did not remove any citations because the Gothic Metal article as you can see has no citations as it was and still is largely run by Leyasu (he claims to own the article).. hense why it has "needs complete rewrite" and "needs vertifiable sources" tags at the top.

It must also be noted, Leyasu reverted 3 perfectly good edits by RJN ([124][125][126]) to POV loaded versions by herself, even though he was on 1RR due to parole... so even if I were not involved she/he was still violating parole.

And again, actually check the DIFFS Leyasu has provided, nowhere does it say that I dislike Gothic Metal, pure bullshit by Leyasu, as I am actually a fan of some bands in this genre.

Defamation #5: 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' [127], [128].

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, [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135]. Despite all the reverting, the user Loudenvier said that Deathrocker was POV pushing and starting a revert war on a featured article, [136]. Another user noted that Deathrocker was violting WP:NPOV, as well, [137]. 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, [138].

Truth #5: Counter-Evidence and Correction of untruths

This whole section provided by Leyasu is pure untruthful slander. I edited the article because it did not focus on actual heavy metal bands that started the genre, just the subgenres which there are already articles for.

It was also bias against Glam Metal. Leyasu's same sockpuppet was the only one reverting this article to their previous version, if you look on the heavy metal article's edit history.

I was actually working with WesleyDodds on the article as we]l as other users on the discussion page [139], and even reveted a couple of Leyasu's sock-vandal attacks to last versions by WesleyDodds, RJN was also reverting versions by Leyasu's sock back to the NPOV version (Which multiple users had worked on together).... you can actually view numerous users working together (including myself) here; Talk:Heavy metal music, predictably Leyasu or his sock didn't show up to help, as to him only his POV matters.

Defamation #6: Selling Out

Deathrocker also performed a supposed 'NPOV Rewrite' of the selling out article, in which he again enforced his own POV on the article without sources [140]. User [[User:ScWizard[SCWizard]] reverted this, however [141]. Deathrocker went on to revert Wizard, [142]. User Nargos added a POV tag to the section Deathrocker was warring on, [143], to which Deathrocker removed because Nargos 'didnt have his permission' [144].

Nargos readded the tag and noted that Deathrocker was violating WP:NPOV and refusing to use the talk page [145], to which Deathrocker reverted this marking the edit as minor as part of his 'reverts not marked revert dont count towards 3RR' wikilawyering campaign [146]. An anon went on to readd the tage [147], and then Deathrocker reverted this calling them a vandal, openly violating WP:3RR, [148]. Nargos returned to revert Deathrocker, [149], but Deathrocker again reverted Nargos, persisting in a revert war [150], claiming it as a one-sided view (which is wrong considering 3 different people had reverted Deathrocker at this point). Nargos again reverted Deathrocker, also editing the comedy section [151], but alas, Deathrocker reverted Nargos calling him a vandal [152]. This carrys on throughout a series of edits where Deathrocker proclaims any version except his are Wrong and Vandalism [153], [154], [155], [156], [157].

Truth #6: Counter-Evidence and Correction of untruths

This was a totally serperate debate and did not involve Leyasu, although he seems to have stalked my activities. (Which is rather worrying and hints at troll like behaviour).

Again this was a content dispute, at the time the article was bias, which was agreeded on by both parties... which is when I first edited it. Although the user disagreed on the state of the newer version been NPOV, to which debating ensued, there was not even a 3RR broke, and the disagreement was eventually settled by myself and another user and the section reworked.

There was no claiming that "every version was wrong and vandalism", Leyasu enjoys twisting words and making up malicious lies in situations such as this.

Defamation #7: So called Admitance to provoking people

Here Deathrocker admits to pushing myself to violate my parole so he can have me banned from Wikipedia, [158].

Truth #7: Counter-Evidence and Correction of untruths

"People"? The only person who was involved with were you and me.

Unless you have little friends in your head which I'm starting to wonder, anybody actually click on the link provided? Thought not.

As always the things Leyasu is claming is complete bullshit (no suprises there). Here is the content of that diffs, which was a reply to Leyasu who was point blank refusing to provide a source on the subject at hand, which was the debated info;[159]

For anyone too lazy, the diff shows I say only;

"It is not vandalism if there is no source tieing him to Gothic Metal, which we have established here... the link you provided was a review of a Goth Rock bands CD, it had nothing at all to do with this.

You do not own this article Leyasu. And also, what relevence is me been banned for 3RR on unrelated articles, when you have just returned from a 42 hour ban and are limited to one revert a day parole which you have totally disregarded, it has no relevence for your "arguement" at all"

That is what is contained within the diff, not what Leyasu falsely claims. - Deathrocker 23:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Defamation #8: Personal attacks via edit summarys

Deathrocker has also used edit summarys for making direct personal attacks at myself, including calling me a liar, cunt, and shit [160], [161].

Truth #8: Counter-Evidence and Correction of untruths

More crazed lies, I have never called Leyasu (or anyone on here) a "cunt or shit".

I have however called him a liar (he has showed this to be true many times, even here) and refered him to WP:BATSHIT in an effort to stop the lunacy, which was going on in the edit was at the time. That is what the diff shows, if you care to check it.

Defamation #9: Admin Sceptre

Deathrocker also attemped to vandalise comments on Admin Sceptre's talk page, [162], due to Sceptre having previously banned Deathrocker for his serial violations of policy across articles.

Truth #9: Counter-Evidence and Correction of untruths

It wasn't "vandalism" at all, Leyasu was been untruthful in a comment to Sceptre (An admin who's ass he is renouned for kissing), I merely corrected it. In retrospect, perhaps I should have just written a new message to Sceptre instead, but by this time I had grown tired of Leyasu persistant lying, minipulating of facts and all round trolling in an attempt to defame other users in the community.

Defamation #10: User Leyasu

Deathrocker also vandalised my user page (Leyasu), [163].. 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, [164].

After Sceptre had removed it, Deathrocker readded it, claiming everyone was 'vandalising', [165].

Truth #10: Counter-Evidence and Correction of untruths

(Yawn) Your lies are very, VERY tiring, and testing. How do you find the energy for it??

It wasn't "vandalism" at all, I only added a suspected Socketpuppet tag [166], as this was around the time of the annoymous IP suspected to be Leyasu, that another user had original reported, which is still viewable here; Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Sockpuppets#User:Leyasu_and_86.143.127.4

It was then reverted by (83.100.146.147) with the edit summary of "Guess I sock with 217.33.207.195, then (--Sceptre)" [167]... to which I reverted back as that made little to no sense, was suspicious (why would an admin need to use an annoymous IP?) and had little/nothing to do with the whether Leyasu was suspected of using sock puppets or not, the line I used in the edit summary was.... "unexplained tag removal, it applies correct?"[168]... nowhere did I say in that statement that everybody was “vandalisng“, just more bullshit from Leyasu.

Ironically one of the suspected annoymous socks of Leyasu, came back and reverted it further (81.157.88.186) with a typical Leyasu edit summary: (rv. vandalism. tag already removed by admin.)[169].. which prominent and well respected user:RJN reverted [170] which once Leyasu returned from a blocking wiped off the profile, claiming everybody was "vandalising" it.

Why would a so called newb annoymous I.P. (81.157.88.186) by editing all articles Leyasu was involved in heated debates in, (Gothic Metal, Moi dix Mois, etc) to last versions by Leyasu while she was blocked?.... and also keeping an eye on Leyasu's userpage too??... pretty obvious the answer; it wasn't a newb, it was infact Leyasu.

Defamation #11: Anon 81.157.88.186

Deathrocker left a message to the anon, accusing it of being me, saying 'stop trolling as usual', even though a check user request had failed on the accusation of accusing 'all anons on Wikipedia belong to Leyasu', [171].

Truth #11: Counter-Evidence and Correction of untruths

Did anybody actually check the link?? Thought not, yet again a lie.

It does not even say "all anons on Wikipedia belong to Leyasu", because I didn't even enter an edit summary for the diff shown.

The only anons on Wikipedia that belong to Leyasu are the ones I previously stated, not "all", nice attempt at exageration though.

Defamation #12: Request for unblock

After being blocked by admin Sceptre for a period of four days, the user Deathrocker chose to request an Unblock [172]. This was answered in kind by admin Rory96 telling Deathrocker he wasnt able to get an unblock without a reason, [173]. Deathrocker responced by Wikilawyering on the 3 Revert Rule policy of Wikipedia, and accusing admin Sceptre of abusing his administrator powers for blocking him [174]. 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 [175]. Admin Rory also seconded this, pointing out it was Deathrockers seventh ban for 3RR in a month and the extended block was justified [176]. 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[177]. Deathrocker refuted this, Wikilarywering and accusing admins Rory and Tawker of abusing their administrator powers, readding the unblock tag, [178]. 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, [179]. 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, [180]. Tawker then went on to tell Deathrocker that making personal attacks at the Admins wasnt going to get him an unblock either, [181]. 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, [182]. Deathrocker didnt learn from this and continued Wikilawyering and making personal attacks, now directing this behaviour at admin Essjay, [183]. Deathrocker then erased all the notices, openly violating policy on not removing admin warnings from user pages on his claim that 'policys dont affect me', [184]. Admin Freakofnature then reverted the removel per policy, [185].

Deathrocker then reverted admin Freakofnature, claiming vandalism and abuse of administrator powers by admin Freak, [186]. The admin reverted this again, [187]. Deathrocker then reverted again, claiming he is allowed to 3RR on his talk page, and that Freak was abusing admin powers,[188]. Freak didnt respond and just reverted again, [189]. Deahtrocker then reverted again, removing the information to try for another Unblock attempt, [190]. Sceptre reverted this, [191], which Deathrocker reverted again, [192]. Freak reverted, [193], Deathrocker pursued a revert war while claiming he should be unbanned from his serial 3RR ban, [194]. 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, [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200].

Truth #12: Counter-Evidence and Correction of untruths

First may I open by saying Leyasu was not involved in this part at all, so he does not have a clue what he is talking about, hense why after reading the following Leyasu will look like an idiot with less than a half of an understanding about the facts on this bit....

I put an "unblock" tag on my talkpage, as I was blocked for WP:3RR which within it states that "sysops may block for up to 24 hours for 3RR".. I was blocked for four days for an argument with Leyasu (who although is on parole was blocked for the same ammount of time) by Sceptre... previous to putting the tag on, I had tried to contact Sceptre through Wikipedia mail, about the issues and his violation of Wikipedia Policies which are stated in WP:3RR, he did not reply back as he later said, he had gone out to the movies or something.

So I put the tag on my page... Roy96 first commented, telling me I needed to voice my argument before I can get unblocked, as I'd only added the tag. To which then I added a comment, which Tawker removed it leaving a comment.

It must be noted at this time that; Tawker and Rory96 are NOT admins, they are just users, check their pages, so Leyasu's claim that I acussed both of them of "abusing admin powers" is bullshit, as neither of them have admin powers to abuse to begin with.

I stated, "please leave the tag on until an admin looks at the case", enter "EssJay", a so called admin, who opened with a threat, claiming I was trying to "game the system" (when I was only following official Wikipedia policies as seen here WP:3RR, and claimed if I added the tag on again requesting help, I would be banned for a week... after this rude comment, I did not re-add the tag, I did however contact the user through Wikimail.

I continued to ask for help, and asked EssJay, where is says in WP:3RR that users can be banned for however long admins want, even though it clearly states "up to 24 hours" for violating 3RR in the official policy, EssJay refused to help me once again and stood by his own policies that were not included in any Official stated Wikipedia polcies.

As the case was now redundant, the unblock tag was not on my talk page and EssJay was no longer repying. I deleted the conversation between myself, Rory and Tawker. It is clearly stated at the top of my page "messages will be archived once read".

Leyasu is lieing however, I neither removed my conversation with EssJay, or the tag which Sceptre had previously placed on my page when he blocked me and Leyasu at the same time (me for 3RR) as the ban was not yet over, so there was no need to remove it yet.

Freakofnurture then starting reverting edits I had made to my OWN USER PAGE, to which I first asked in the summary "why are you reverting my talkpage??".... I was given no reply, and Freakofnurture just continued to revert MY page, to which I did state in one of the edit summaries "reverting vandalism", as it is MY OWN TALKPAGE, users often archive their talkpages and don't keep redundant talk clogging it up, there was nothing offensive, on it or anything, and I have not read any rules saying you can't delete messages on your own page, once read.

I did not however say this user was "abusing admin powers", this is more bullshit by Leyasu, as any user can edit userpages, it has nothing to do with admin powers. And the link Leyasu provided while addressing that only shows a blank edit summary by me. Freakofnuture then went to LOCK my own talkpage, without giving any reason at all, or even saying why he was reverting my talkpage to begin with.

Outro: Temple in Dispelled

1

After that, EssJay suggested that I was banned for a month, for refusing non Wikipedia policies, asking for help and asking certain admins (Sceptre, EssJay) why they were standing by clear violations of WP:3RR, which states 3RR violators can only be banned up to 24 hours.

This discussion can be seen here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Deathrocker

Which is the position I am in now, using this name to try and debate my case (and stating so clearly) as some dunce has locked my talk page, so I cannot even argue my case on my account, The one month ban on user:Deathrocker needs to be lifted at once, as it is in clear violation of Wikipedia blocking policys.

And not only that but it is a bias block, the other party in the revert wars; Leyasu was not given a block at all, even though they are already on ArbCon parole, after past troublesome incidents with Wiki users.

2

Thus ending your stop at the "Temple of Deathrocker" which has now been burned to the ground.

On a serious note. I do find Leyasu's cyber-stalking of me on Wikipedia quite frightening, it creeps me out that somebody would go through so much effort, following my every edit and then twist my words in such an ugly manner in an attempt to use it against me, and has actually made me concerened for my personal safety, please stop this beaviour Leyasu. - DeathrockerComment 07:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S.

Grasping at straws

In the latest atempt for Leyasu to try to suck up to Sceptre this was posted on Sceptre's page "In response to yew opening the Arbcom case, Deathrocker provided this, a clone of my evidence page in which he makes personal attack after personal attack about me and yew. He infers several times thoughout we are in a sexual relathionship as well, and threatens me with real life violance, albight at the end stating 'you make me concerned for my personal safety'.

Im not going to be bullied or intimidated, or hounded by this user, but is there anyway of blocking this user and his sockpuppets from having any access to my user page and talk page? Ley Shade 08:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)"''

There are no personal attacks here Leyasu, stop playing the victim when all you've done is attack... and Spectre is barely discussed in most of it, yet you are still desperately trying to suck up in an atempt to stop me voicing my side, this is merely the correction of the slew of lies you are trying to pass of as "fact" without proof... I was requested to make a comment, and this is exactly what I am doing with this.

Also in NO WAY have I EVER said that you and Sceptre are involved in any kind of sexual relationship (do not be disgusting, he is 15 years old), you are really getting desperate now with your wild claims... and how is me saying I fear for my own personal safety because of you stalking me on Wikipedia keeping a note of all that I do [201], dedicating shrines to me [202], etc, me threatening violence against you??... it isn't, stop being ridiculous, you're scaring me.

And as for sock puppets... this is of interest, from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Deathrocker; "Im violating my Ban by doing this, but im using an anon to add this comment here. (...) 86.132.130.69 20:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC) (Ley Shade)"

The end? - DeathrockerComment 10:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Outcome
After this was provided as my counter-evidence in the case, the Arbitration committe ruled infavour of myself, throwing the case out after Leyasu's claims were found inacurate.