Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker/Proposed decision
Have any arbitrators looked at the Workshop or Evidence lately?[edit]
Technically, you guys could close the case right now; but I don't think that anywhere near enough has been done. Since the case started, Leyasu has been given two blocks (one for one month and a more recent one earlier this week for three months) for violating revert parole, and he has been banned from all heavy metal articles (heavy metal is the main topic which he edits) by Tony Sidaway for edit warring on them through anons. He has blatantly evaded both of those blocks numerous times through anons and sockpuppets. Please look at the new evidence that I have posted and at the new findings of fact and remedies that I have proposed. This case hasn't received nearly as much attention as it should have. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I looked at your proposals, but, while I appreciate the time and thought that went into them, I don't think there's a practical difference between them and what is on the proposed page now. Leyasu has indeed continued to violate his parole, but that is solved by both the stricter parole, and the fact that the parole is escalating. If he doesn't mend his ways, then he'll face a near permanent block. He already faces a yearlong block at the next violation. In either case (reformed or not) the problem is solved by the edit warring having stopped. Sockpuppetry can be dealt with routinely by administrators with a note to WP:AN. Dmcdevit·t 08:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Everything you've said here is correct, except the edit warring has not stopped. He's still been using the anons specifically for edit warring and being disruptive (WP:POINT), although he hasn't violated his revert parole with each anon. Could we have a measure specifically regarding the block evasions, i.e. some penalty against him that is specifically for evading the blocks? Just simply blocking him hasn't done much good, because he just keeps coming back under anons. That's why I suggested restricting him to one account. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- We have already ruled that the edit warring ought to stop, I mean. I realize he is evading the ban with sockpuppets, and now it is up to admins and checkusers to enforce. This isn't any different from any other block evasion, and there is no use to our further disallowing block evasion. It is already against our policy, and he's already not allowed to come back anonymously to edit. Unfortunately, I think you need to find a technical solution, where we can't offer one. At the very least, if he continues reincarnations, admins need to keep whacking him. Dmcdevit·t 04:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Everything you've said here is correct, except the edit warring has not stopped. He's still been using the anons specifically for edit warring and being disruptive (WP:POINT), although he hasn't violated his revert parole with each anon. Could we have a measure specifically regarding the block evasions, i.e. some penalty against him that is specifically for evading the blocks? Just simply blocking him hasn't done much good, because he just keeps coming back under anons. That's why I suggested restricting him to one account. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)