Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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/w/index.php?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.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by Danteferno

[edit] User:Leyasu and edit wars with other editors

User:Leyasu has been involved in edit wars/feuding in several articles with different editors in less than 2 months time: Gothic Metal, Grunge music [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] , Deathrock/Deathrock fashion [10] [11] and Children of Bodom [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] On each occasion, User:Leyasu added information that was was POV and unverifiable and refused to cite sources that backed up his claims when other editors asked for it. For instance, when asked to provide sources specifically for the Gothic Metal article, he wrote "Ill provide them later when i have time, when im not working and when im not on a break from rehersals" [17] (He had been asked to provide sources for almost 3 months [18] [19] the "websites" he would eventually provide would not support anything he wrote, and this was pointed out. [20])

Recently, I started a Gothic Metal/Rewrite page for discussion, and without any significant discussion User:Leyasu once again added WP:Bold, unverified content to the page [21], I reverted it back to the original, stating my reasons [22], and he then reverted it back to his version [23] with false claims that "sources were provided" and that I was "vandalizing" the page. Rather than risk a 3RR block again, I have not worked on it since.


Related cases involving User:Leyasu:

In "citing sources", User:Leyasu did the same thing on the Grunge music article/discussion as he did on the Gothic metal article/discussion, listing 3 websites that didn't back up any of his claims [24] - they were later dismissed by User:Jmabel [25] and User:LGagnon [26].

In the Deathrock article, User:FilmGal noted that User:Leyasu had made unverifiable claims about the article's topic, [27] in which he replied with more unsubtantiated claims, describing the article's topic as "We are a bunch of elitests" [28] User:Leyasu was later summoned for mediation by User:FilmGal [29] in which User:Leyasu stated at the end, "I will provide sources if needs be, but this article isnt my priority...Might i say, ive also stopped editing it, due to my Wikipedia priorties lying heavily elsewhere." [30]

More recently, the Children of Bodom article (which I have no current involvement in) has been consistently reverted by User:Leyasu regarding a dispute on the band's genre. The first 4 (minimum) of his reverts are all from January 31, 2006. [31]] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] The revert war continued on through February 8th, [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] in which he was blocked a 2nd time for 3RR. [42](This was also after he signed the "Edit warring considered harmful" Template [43] at the Arbitration Workshop page.) On February 9th, after his 24 hour block was up, he went back to the Children of Bodom article and committed another 3RR violation, in which he was imposed with a 48 hour block by admin User:Howcheng. [44] This would be User:Leyasu's 3rd 3RR block on Wikipedia in two months. He would commit his 4th 3RR violation in the Gothic music article and was blocked on February 17th by User:Sceptre. [45]

He also consistently reverted off Children of Bodom's inclusion on the melodic death metal page, placing this warning for editors: "do not add bands without discussion on the talk page, this includes over all bands Children of Bodom whos genre has been determined as not being Melodic Death Metal and adding the band to the list will be considered vandalism." [46] (There was no "determination" anywhere about the band's genre.)

While there isn't a revert war (yet), User:Leyasu has also been pushing his POV on the Goth article, an edit which one editor described as using weasel words. [47] User:Leyasu accused the same editor (User:Mdwh) of being "biased" [48], subsequently, User:Jakob Huneycutt and User:Adrift* joined the discussion; Huneycutt said that User:Leyasu was being biased and expressed "hostility to the subject matter" [49] User:Mdwh then said User:Leyasu provided no evidence for his claims [50] User:Leyasu then said placing a RfC would settle the issue and avoid "revert warring and arguing" [51], eventhough the only editor with disagreement was User:Leyasu. [52]

Regarding User:Johnleemk's assessment below, most of what he said is correct, however, there are a few additional things from that time worth mentioning:

1. User:Idont havaname and myself were not the only ones who reverted back User:Leyasu's edits, User:Ray Dassen also did so here [53] and here [54]. I also never called it "my article" or claimed ownership of it.

2. Regarding the Gothic Metal article, I reported my violations of 3RR here [55] and acknowledged that I would probably get blocked for a period of time. A block never happened for either myself or User:Leyasu (on the Gothic Metal article), nor was there any intervention to deal with this problem, aside from the page protection as already noted.

3. It is true that web-based material is not the only means to cite sources. But the fact to the matter is that User:Leyasu provided nothing to back up his claims, either on Gothic Metal, Grunge music, or the Death rock articles.

[edit] User:Leyasu and RfCs, claiming "Concensus"

On Talk:Gothic metal, User:Leyasu made an RFC which was returned with the feedback of 2 editors: User:Elonka and User:Tearlach.

User:Elonka brought up the policy of WP:NOR to User:Leyasu [56] She also asked him to provide sources for his claims and where it said there was "concensus" reached on Talk:Gothic metal [57] . He didn't answer either question. Neither did User:Parasti, who also claimed there was concensus and that User:Leyasu did provide sources to back his claims up.

User:Elonka proposed this idea to work out the dispute [58]

User:Leyasu responded: "Erm, i can do that WITH the current article, if you so wish Elonka. And conesnus was reached twice mi-lady" and that the websites she was using were "wrong". [59]

User:Tearlach explained that the current article needed a rewrite and that it "conveys zero information to readers who don't know the genre." [60], specifically citing two opening paragraphs that User:Leyasu put in the article as an example.

User:Leyasu responded back, falsely claiming (again) that "concensus was reached twice" and that I refused to participate in the revision process [61]

User:Kylotan also contributed to the discussion (although I'm not sure if this was in response to the RfC) disagreeing with User:Leyasu's characterization of "gothic metal" and "gothic doom" being two separate genres. [62] User:Leyasu falsely claimed again that "sources were already provided" and that I just "ignored" them. [63]

[edit] User:Parasti and User:Leyasu

Regarding User:Parasti - I still have no idea who this user is, other than the fact he/she is mostly around to defend User:Leyasu, argue with me, and/or attack my character. The slanted "evidence" from User:Parasti, below reflects that well.

The Black Dahlia Murder (mentioned by User:Parasti and User:Leyasu below) is a long over dispute, and the "anonymous users" was actually one "anonymous user" who enganged in personal attacks and eventually came to a concensus with the help of admin User:Tony Sidaway. User:Tony Sidaway reasonably scolded both of us for our actions at the time.

The skirmish with User:Sn0wflake was a very brief affair that also occured in my early duration of Wikipedia; more recently, User:Sn0wflake asked me for feedback on a Peer Review request [64]

The Nu metal article (and other things mentioned by User:Parasti) is another example of my very early tenure on Wikipedia; my tone has since been nicer and more refined with experience, which makes most of these incidents rather outdated in comparison to more recent matters.

There was no concensus on the Gothic Metal discussion, and that is when User:Parasti first appeared (with no prior participation) and removed the very tags [65] that were replaced by someone else after User:Leyasu RfC'd. [66] User:Parasti also equated adding the tags as "vandalising the article"[67] and that they would "...pollute the article, anyway" [68]

User:Parasti defended User:Leyasu for calling me "ignorant" [69] because I "disregarded his "sources", when in reality (just like the Grunge music case) there were no actual sources provided by User:Leyasu at all. Either way, endorsing someone else's use of namecalling towards someone else amounts to a personal attack.

User:Parasti also wrote here: "Danteferno accuses anyone he disagrees with as being a sock puppet."[70] An untrue allegation that is nothing more than a character attack.

User:Parasti's contribution to Talk:Gothic metal has mostly been to argue with me, calling my posts "'extra' commentary" [71] The thread root asked for specific input on material on the revision [72] But User:Leyasu continued to provide unsourced claims and User:Parasti defended him for it.

One of the arguments had to do with User:Leyasu's unverified claim in the article that Symphonic metal was a genre that evolved from Gothic metal, and that "Gothic Doom" is a separate genre from Gothic Metal. I explained to the both of them several times that the websites User:Leyasu provided did not back up any of these said claims [73] [74] [75] [76] I asked where on the websites it confirmed this info, and neither User:Leyasu or User:Parasti explained. (In addition, User:Leyasu changed the genres of many gothic metal band articles to "gothic doom", such as the Type O Negative article [77] [78]. As User:Idont Havaname noted, it looks like User:Leyasu's been doing this since the beginning of the January.)

On 01/27, I wrote a polite request for User:Parasti to explain what needed to be reworded/improved in the Rewrite page, since he seemed to have unexplained "disagreement"; [79] User:Parasti still has not responded; the past few days reflect most of his participation on this page, defending User:Leyasu and smearing me (which seem to be this user's priorities.)

User:Parasti claimed below that "Porkchop" has nothing to do with User:Leyasu. However, User:Leyasu claimed here [80] that "Porkchop1234" was his "brother in-law".

[edit] User:Parasti and User:Leyasu - same editor?

It may take "Check User" to confirm for sure, but any belief that User:Leyasu was/is using sockpuppets in any way (based on what sockpuppets are used for - defending one's own position) has justification behind it. User:Idont Havaname further elaborates an earlier case in the section "Possible sockpuppetry".)

Among the things noticed with User:Parasti

1. User had no prior participation in the Gothic Metal discussion until cite/rewrite tags were put on the article, in which he removed them, said there was concensus, and did not explain how there concensus.[81] User:Leyasu repeated this same claim many times on the Gothic Metal discussion page.

2. User:Parasti and User:Leyasu either start with "Revert." or "Rv." in their edit summary when reverting an edit. [82] [83] [84] [85]

3. User:Parasti and User:Leyasu both referred to adding the cite/rewrite tags to Gothic Metal as "vandalising" the article. (both using the "s" instead of "z" version of the word). [86] [87]

4. User:Parasti and User:Leyasu exchanged friendly messages to eachother ending in :P ... barely 5 minutes apart. [88] [89] (Probably the best examples for an IP trace.)


5. User:Parasti has defended User:Leyasu repeatedly, even for things that are a clear violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Cite, and Wikipedia:Civility (See prior section)

6. Children of Bodom article - User:130.102.0.176 reverted out a revision by User:Leyasu that was contested by a group of editors on the article's talk page (and resulted in a 24 hour block of User:Leyasu for 3RR of the article). User:Parasti- no participation in the article - asked for justification on the talk page for reverting out User:Leyasu's edit.[90]

7. Since joining Wiki. December 2005, User:Parasti has not gone through the same lengths of defending or speaking for anyone else on Wikipedia, but User:Leyasu.


(Side note, too: User:Leyasu removed User:Idont Havaname's posts in User talk:Leyasu about using sockpuppets, saying in the subject, "Im going to clean this out weekly now, get used to it x)"[91])

[edit] User:Leyasu and personal attacks, namecalling

User:Leyasu has been extremely abusive to myself other editors, as evident in other cases on his talk page. He called myself (and User:LGagnon [92] from the Grunge music discussion) "meglomaniacal" and "MPOV" on many separate occasions, including here [93], where he also wrote to me:


"im going to quite promptly tell you to go f--k yourself"

""then to be blunt, grow the f--k up"

"Now i know your fond of creating articles with no valuable content what so ever, or just seemingly like to create articles so you can do the whole 'Mommy, mommy look what i did' thing to your friends."

"If you start commiting childish acts of spite and getting meglomanical, im going to tell you so."


You can check my history and you will find I used no similar language/inflammatory rhetoric towards him.

He also called me "ignorant" [94] When I informed him that this was a personal attack, he replied, "Im calling you ignorant on the fact your acting ignorant." [95]

User:Leyasu had been blocked previously for personally attacking another editor in the Grunge music discussion [96]

User:Leyasu called a user who politely asked him a question on his talk page an "annoyance" [97]

He has also accused me of personal attacks, which is basically a personal attack, since it's entirely untrue. Much like not providing sources for his article edits, he has also not provided sources for his allegations against me and other editors he warred with and/or personally attacked.

[edit] Evidence presented by Johnleemk

[edit] Revert warring on Gothic metal

Danteferno began the revert war by reverting an edit Leyasu made ([98]). After Leyasu made several major edits to the article, Danteferno reverted them as well ([99]). Leyasu again made some major edits of a very similar nature to the earlier ones, which Danteferno reverted again ([100]). Leyasu then made an uncommented revert of Danteferno. Danteferno then reverted Leyasu again and told him to "stop reverting" unless he explained himself on the talk ([101]). Leyasu reverted this as well with the excuse "A) Im adding actuall history - B) Im saying what it is - C) Yours is POV, mines actuall knowledge - D) Your the only person who disagrees" ([102]). Danteferno then reverted what he called a "flawed edit with senseless reasoning" ([103]). At this point, Leyasu reverted and made a personal attack in his edit summary: "Reverted back because children keep changing it without reading it - Sorry i meant Dante" ([104]).

At this point, Idont Havaname (talk • contribs) reverted Leyasu ([105]). Leyasu reverted this as well ([106]). Danteferno reverted Leyasu again ([107]). Leyasu continued the revert war and reverted without stating explicitly so ([108]). Soon afterwards, Danteferno reverted ([109]). Leyasu reverted again without stating explicitly so ([110]). The revert war then continued for two and a half hours ( [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158]) ) until the page was protected by A Man In Black (talk • contribs) ([159]). Throughout this period, Danteferno repeatedly characterised Leyasu's edits as "vandalism" ([160], [161]). For his part, Leyasu contended that Danteferno's edits were POV, original research, and vandalism ([162], [163], [164], [165], [166]).

The crux of the debate appears to be about citing sources. Danteferno repeatedly demanded that Leyasu cite sources for his edits ([167]). Danteferno himself provided some for his preferred version early on in the debate after being requested to do so ([168]). However, Leyasu characterised them as "fan sites" and "original research" ([169]). Leyasu also claimed that his sources were offline material that he did not have access to at the time ([170]). However, it appears he misunderstood WP:CITE and thought online sources are the only ones acceptable ([171]). Danteferno insisted that this indicated the status quo (his version) was preferable, and stated that Leyasu had the burden of proof to present sources for his content ([172]).

Now, bear in mind, this discussion is all from edit summaries! I haven't even dared look at the talk page yet. :-O Johnleemk | Talk 06:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Idont Havaname

Please note: I apologize in advance for the length of this; I think it is over the word limit. I've spent four days collecting evidence and am just posting what I've thrown together, rather than editing it down, in the interest of not making people wait. There might still be more coming; most of these diffs I have so far come right from Gothic metal and its talk page. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: The allegation by Leyasu about "Danteferno's version"

Before I start with remarks regarding page ownership and other possible policy violations, I would like to clarify an allegation that Leyasu made in his statement at the start of this case, namely, "Sometime ago the Gothic Metal article was revised from a version posted by Danteferno." The original version was not, in fact, posted by Danteferno. Looking at the page history of Gothic metal will reveal this. The article has existed since 15 May 2003. Danteferno's contributions before the first posting of Leyasu's version were solely the following:

  • 5 July 2005: Adding one band to the list of bands in the article [173]
  • 20 July 2005: (2 edits) Reworking one section and adding another [174]
  • 3 August 2005: (3 edits) Removing references to Evanescence in the article; several editors on the talk page at that time had previously mentioned doing that. [175]
  • 1 September 2005: Removing part of a paragraph discussing "Gothcore", although without much explanation (rollback-like edit summary) [176]

[edit] Re: Allegations by Danteferno about Parasti and Leyasu

I am reasonably certain that User:Parasti and User:Leyasu are different people rather than sockpuppets of each other, and I question Danteferno's allegation that they are the same person. Although Parasti frequently agrees with Leyasu, by analyzing their edits for the kind of language they use, it's easy to tell that they probably aren't the same person. In the past, Leyasu has mentioned his spelling/grammar difficulties [177] [178]. Danteferno mentioned it soon afterward [179], and it has also been mentioned recently in edit summaries by anons in the Children of Bodom history. Leyasu had told me early in his editing career that he did not have access to a spell checker. [180] On the other hand, Parasti uses standard English spellings, capitalization, and grammar.

A CheckUser would clarify the situation further, but I'm pretty sure these user accounts belong to different people. If this continues to be an issue, I recommend doing a CheckUser.

[edit] Leyasu calling edits he doesn't agree with "POV" and "vandalism"

Looking at some of Leyasu's edit summaries, I found these:

  • "Rv. POV.", where an anon called Nightwish "Gothic metal" [181] His contributions during January 2006 have largely consisted of changing genre descriptions of bands to descriptions with which he agrees.
  • "Revert. Vandalism." when an administrator removed a speedy tag on an article that didn't meet any of WP:CSD [182]
  • "Revert, POV. Changing article to advertise band as something they are not." [183]
  • "Revert. Please do not make comments to other users in the comment box. Please provide sources before making drastic edits against editorial consensus" [184]

[edit] Other dubious reverts

  • Leyasu reverted an expansion to Heavy metal music instead of merely fixing it to make it more NPOV [185]
  • Leyasu bit a newbie, accused him of bias, and said he'd be starting an RfC following this revert [186]
  • Leyasu reverted this [187], saying it was an unsourced claim

[edit] Abusive/bad-faith edit summaries

Both Danteferno and Leyasu have been violating WP:NPA and assuming bad faith with edit summaries.

  • Danteferno, then Leyasu: "Anything that isn't Leyasu's edit is "POV"...nothing "POV" about article at all." [188] "Revert. Blatant vandalism. Blatant harrasment of edits made by myself." [189]
  • Danteferno and Leyasu, in the edit summaries shown in this diff [190]

Some edit summaries from Leyasu:

  • Calling Danteferno "megalomaniacal": [191]
  • "Blatant assumption and rubbish." [192]
  • "Revert: Obvious bad faith edit." [193]
  • "Do not break the article link. It is vandalism and Meglomanical to do so simply because it is not what you wrote." [194]
  • "More foolish claims by Dante" (one of the edits where he calls Dante "megalomaniacal" [195]
  • During the early November revert war on Gothic metal: "Revert back to no POV and no Original Research or Rumour. Vandalism on accuract information." (See section regarding WP:CITE below.) [196]

For the most part, Danteferno has had nicer edit summaries, though these two are suspect:

  • WP:NPA: "Please inform admin, Leyasu. Don't forget to tell them about your tag-removal vandalism." [197]
  • WP:BITE: "rv: Tag Removal Vandalism - User:Parasti didn't particupate in (and probably didn't read thoroughly) discussion" [198]

[edit] Removing references / making unsubstantiated claims

WP:CITE is one of the most important policies we need to have in order to make Wikipedia a credible project. However, during the FAC process for Nightwish, Leyasu removed most of the references in the article, saying that they weren't needed. [199] [200] [201]

Also, an edit I already mentioned on a previous allegation contained unsubstantiated claims that several bands had "agreed" to start "a genre called Nu-Goth", and that Evanescence had stolen their songs from other bands. [202] [203] These allegations were dismissed on Talk:Gothic metal and Talk:Evanescence, after I had asked other users about them, including Leyasu. [204] Further, it is interesting to note that he claimed that bands were blacklisting the Gothic metal entry, but he didn't provide the names of any specific bands. [205]

Leyasu also accused Danteferno of using sockpuppets while arguing with him on my talk page. He didn't mention any IP addresses or user names that may have been sockpuppets. (However, please note that this edit was from a while ago, and a few diffs later, Leyasu and I cleared up that issue.) [206] I gave him this reply [207]

On his second edit here, Leyasu said he had a petition from bands that agreed with him, although that was never provided. [208] (This diff from the talk page mentions the petition again, and also contains numerous personal attacks and accusations of POV.) [209]

One of Leyasu's versions of the page included references to a band called Sweet Nightmare. Google checks by Danteferno, Arm, and me could not confirm this band's existence; Arm thought Leyasu was making this band up. [210]

Danteferno gave this assessment about Leyasu's claims. [211]

Elonka brought up WP:NOR in replies to some of Leyasu's messages. [212]

[edit] Claiming expertise / owning articles

During the revert war, Leyasu blanked his talk page (which contained some policy-related warnings from me and Danteferno), replacing it with his original revision of Gothic metal. [213]

After Danteferno asked him for sources, Leyasu replied with, "My knowledge of the subject is far more broad and deep," [214] and later, "The people involved will always be right." [215]

While revising the page at Gothic metal/Temp (which now redirects to Gothic metal), Leyasu objected to Danteferno's working on the revision. Leyasu accused him of MPOV and said that the revised article should not be "better, not a trophy prize to a difference of view points". [216] To Leyasu's credit, he did invite others to edit the revised page before he posted it, although this was after Danteferno had temporarily left the project. [217]

As touched on in many diffs above, Leyasu has been reverting most of Danteferno's edits to the page. However, regarding sources, he did say, "I said the websites i got from Google, which you claimed didnt exist, are as unreliable, POV, and speculative as your own. The point was, they can favour either argument, and, often contradict each other when they agree on certain other things." [218]

[edit] Ignoring consensus

As already brought up by Danteferno, Leyasu has reverted the genre description of Children of Bodom several times. This consensus has lasted for more than a year [219] [220] [221], and it hasn't changed. In addition to Tobias Wolter and Sn0wflake, who discussed the matter before Leyasu got there, Wisdom89, along with several anons, all disagreed with him about the band being black metal [222] [223] [224], and although several anons and Wisdom89 told him to stop reverting against consensus and without improving the article [225] [226] [227], Leyasu accused him of POV and said that his (Leyasu's) description was NPOV, even though no one agreed with it. [228] An anon gave this reply [229], saying that Leyasu's perception of consensus was "fictional". [230] Another anonymous user (Wisdom89, but not logged in at the time) discouraged the use of genre descriptions. [231] Leyasu brought up some policies, but didn't answer their questions. [232]

From Leyasu's evidence: "Concenring Idont's attacks at me and my edits on the Children of Bodom page, i point out that the users has disregarded sources in the same way as Dante, on the basis they do not count unless they agree with their POV [233]." I've replied on his talk page here. [234]

[edit] Possible sockpuppetry

Earlier in the discussion, Danteferno mentioned that anonymous comments signed as Leyasu came from the same IP address as anonymous comments signed Flagrancy and Porkchop (accounts were later created for both of these usernames). These might have been different users, but I just thought you should know about it. [235] (Note that User:Flagrancy and User:Porkchop were only active for less than a week each, on Gothic metal and its talk page. Leyasu denied knowing the people who created those accounts. [236]) Leyasu was using 81.156.219.72 in this edit. [237]

[edit] Incivility and personal attacks

Leyasu has a history of "talking down" to Danteferno. I brought up the "children, I meant Dante" edit summary earlier (Johnleemk also mentioned it). Also, there is this diff [238] in which he tells Danteferno, "Suggestion: Try looking things up, before assuming them as fact.", even though Danteferno was citing more reputable sources. Further, Leyasu broke down the argument into "Dante's POV versus factual accuracy" in this diff [239], although several users (Dante, Arm, several anons, and I) have challenged Leyasu and those who agreed with him during the discussion.

Danteferno suggested that Leyasu was "wast(ing) our time". [240] (Soon after this, I suggested that they take a break and edit other articles, since they were spending most of their time on that one talk page. [241]) He also wondered if Leyasu was "trolling" [242], but didn't just go out and attack Leyasu the way Leyasu was attacking him in the "go fuck yourself" diff that Danteferno cited earlier.

On 17 January, after Danteferno returned, Leyasu accused Danteferno of consistently making personal attacks, and said that Danteferno had left because he had been "proved wrong". In the same message, he said that Danteferno should go edit Anarchapedia if he "would prefer to use a Wikipedia with no rules". [243]

[edit] Continued 3RR violations and 3RR blocks during this ArbCom case

Leyasu has continued revert warring with User:Wisdom89 and the anonymous user User:220.239.77.250 during this ArbCom case. Both Leyasu and 220.239.77.250 have violated 3RR on Children of Bodom during this case. In a roughly 6-hour period on 7-8 February, Leyasu reverted, or partially reverted, the other users' edits to Children of Bodom 6 times, calling the edits "POV pushing" and "vandalism". Please also notice the edit summaries that the anon was using. [244] [245] [246] [247] [248] [249]

Leyasu told me about his 3RR violation [250], and I blocked him and the anon for 24 hours each. [251] [252] In his first edit after the block expired, he partially reverted Children of Bodom again (although he did also add a section to the article), saying he was fixing POV and vandalism, and that he would add citations later. [253] Soon afterward, he reverted the removal of the section he added [254] [255], told me that the anon was "vandalising the page again" [256], and later did a partial revert. [257] The anon with whom Leyasu was revert warring was using edit summaries for discussion [258] (although he did say to use the talk page in his next revert [259]) and eventually started reverting without edit summaries. [260] [261] The anon also called Leyasu "unbelievably ignorant". [262] Howcheng then blocked Leyasu for 48 hours, and strongly encouraged him to work out a compromise with the other editors involved. [263]

[edit] Evidence presented by parasti

[edit] Edit wars

From Danteferno's evidence:

Idont havaname and myself were not the only ones who reverted back Leyasu's edits, Ray Dassen also did so here and here.

Of the two one was made by an anonymous IP, and none were part of the revert war. Because of this, Ray Dassen was mentioned continuously throughout the discussion as being against Leyasu's edits, yet the user never participated in it.

I also never called it "my article" or claimed ownership of it.

Danteferno has previously engaged in edit wars with several anonymous users over an article titled The Black Dahlia Murder with edit summaries such as "rv vandalism", "rv immaturity", also violating the 3RR at least once on 2005-10-02 [264]. He was never blocked for it. He refers to his preferred version of the article as "my article". [265] The discussion gets out of hand when Danteferno sends a complaint to the IP range's ISP, and an admin immediately intervenes. [266]

From Idont Havaname's evidence:

The original version was not, in fact, posted by Danteferno.

From 2005-07-16 to 2005-07-20 Danteferno did a major (it was really more than a spelling check) rewrite of the gothic metal article. (diffs are those also provided by Idont) [267] [268]

Later in the discussion he writes "Leyasu - It (article) was fine the way it was; please leave it as that." [269] and "AGAIN, LEAVE THE PAGE ALONE.", [270] showing no interest as to why Leyasu thought the article needed a rewrite and why he cares enough to actually rewrite it.

From Danteferno's evidence:

For instance, when asked to provide sources, specifically for the Gothic Metal article, he wrote "Ill provide them later when i have time, when im not working and when im not on a break from rehersals"

Which in turn, he did. [271] [272]

(He had been asked to provide sources for almost 3 months. the "websites" he would eventually provide would not support anything he wrote, and this was pointed out.)

He also provided sources in November [273]. "would not support anything he wrote" is a misleading statement; it is that they did not support everything he wrote, they did however support most of it.

On 01/27, I wrote a polite request for User:Parasti to explain what needed to be reworded/improved in the Rewrite page, since he seemed to have unexplained "disagreement"; as of 02/01, User:Parasti, still has not responded; the past few days reflect most of his participation on this page, defending User:Leyasu and smearing me (which seem to be this user's priorities.)

Although I fail to see how is this evidence, I'd like to point out that Danteferno failed to give answers or an opinion on questions I asked him regarding the revision [274], which I believe are what is referred to as "unexplained disagreement", and which incidentally answer his "polite request". I am not inclined to continue discussion with Danteferno, as it has been neither constructive nor reasonable, which, as it seems, is the dead end of every dispute Danteferno has been involved in, unless an admin intervenes or an arbcom case is started. I also feel the gothic metal article requires very much extensive research, as well as very deep knowledge of musical genres in general to actually qualify as an encyclopedia article. At the moment, for one I don't have the time and the other I do not have, so I have decided to not further edit or discuss the article in question.

From Idont Havaname's evidence:

While revising the page at Gothic metal/Temp (which now redirects to Gothic metal), Leyasu objected to Danteferno's working on the revision.

Leyasu proposed "pooling the knowledge together" to Danteferno several times during the discussion, each proposition received no attention. [275] [276]

[edit] Personal attacks

From Danteferno's evidence:

He also called me "ignorant". When I informed him that this was a personal attack, he replied, "Im calling you ignorant on the fact your acting ignorant."

This was in regards to the Danteferno's proposed initial version of the revision that is being discussed at the moment. Leyasu had written an extensive revision comment [277] with most of the sources provided [278], in order to work together on the new article. None of the information was in the revision Danteferno posted soon after [279], the only logical explanation being either ignorance or unwillingness to work with either of us (Leyasu and myself), as observed later: "I don't think there's much gain in talking to either one of you." [280] and "I'm really sick of arguing with you and Leyasu (if it really is "you" and User:Leyasu, which is becoming seemingly difficult to believe.)" [281], also indirectly implying that I'm a sock puppet of Leyasu.

He has also accused me of personal attacks, which is basically a personal attack, since it's entirely untrue.

On 2005-11-05 Danteferno adds the gothic metal page to most vandalized pages [282], claiming edits are made by an anonymous user (Leyasu) using internet sock puppets (more on that below).

Throughout the discussion Danteferno writes: "I don't think he knows the definitions of a lot of the terms he uses." [283], "another pathetic character attack from Leyasu that no one (but Leyasu) believes", "will just lead to another one of his incoherent rants" [284]

On 2006-01-16 Danteferno writes: "Your "friend" parasti(who also seems to be joining you in your 3RR violations on other articles) is not the main voice of Wikipedia, and neither or you." [285]. Neither am I a friend of Leyasu, nor have I ever participated in any edit / revert wars.

Danteferno accuses anyone he disagrees with as being a sock puppet. Edits on The Black Dahlia murder were made by different IPs, one of them politely saying on Danteferno's talk page that they are not the same person (see link above), yet he calls them all an "anonymous user". Accusations of sock puppetry were made against me and Leyasu. The only exception seems to be MrHate in an old discussion on the List of Nu metal musical groups talk page; the user received personal attacks instead: "A truly selfish (and dense) mindset." [286], "If there was ever a jury call in his town it would be an embarrassment if his phone number was the one picked.", "A 10-year-old could come up with more grown-up tactics." [287]

From Idont Havaname's evidence:

Leyasu bit a newbie, accused him of bias, and said he'd be starting an RfC following this revert

About the same "warm welcome" he received from Danteferno. Leyasu registered on November when the original gothic metal discussion took place.

From Johnleemk's evidence:

Leyasu reverted and made a personal attack in his edit summary: "Reverted back because children keep changing it without reading it - Sorry i meant Dante"

Fair enough. An anonymous user, who signed their comments with "Leyasu" on 2005-11-12 wrote in Idont Havaname's talk page: " I dont know wether to remove it or not because i dont know wether its Vandalism or Free Speech." [288], "it" being a reference to anonymous comments left in the gothic metal talk page. [289]

[edit] Sock puppets

From Idont Havaname's evidence:

Leyasu also accused Danteferno of using sockpuppets while arguing with him on my talk page. He didn't mention any IP addresses or user names that may have been sockpuppets. (However, please note that this edit was from a while ago, and a few diffs later, Leyasu and I cleared up that issue.) [290] I gave him this reply [291]

As I'm not sure why these diffs were provided, I'll try to clear up my own confusion. Leyasu wrote: "Also, your critiscisms havent been constructive like Idont's have, yours and your 'sock puppets' have been nothing more, than very badly masked personal attacks.". "your 'sock puppets'" is a reference to Danteferno accusing Leyasu of sock puppetry [292] [293] [294] , not Danteferno using sock puppets.

Danteferno mentioned that anonymous comments signed as Leyasu came from the same IP address as anonymous comments signed Flagrancy and Porkchop (accounts were later created for both of these usernames).

The registered User:Porkchop has never been involved in the gothic metal discussion, it was an anonymous user first signing comments with "Porkchop" and later on with "Metal Mayhem Rulz". There were no anonymous comments signed with "Flagrancy", only the one from the registered user.

From Danteferno's evidence:

User:Parasti claimed that "Porkchop" has nothing to do with User:Leyasu.

There's a registered user Porkchop (not related) and an anonymous user who signs comments with "Porkchop" (related). Read above.

As I was collecting the evidence, I posted a message on Idont's talk page, asking whether there's any proof of Leyasu using sock puppets. As it appears there were none. My exact observations based on Idont's answer are available at the user's talk page. [295] Leyasu has several times insisted on that he is not using sock puppets. [296] [297] [298] [299]

User had no prior participation in the Gothic Metal discussion until cite/rewrite tags were put on the article, in which he removed them, said there was concensus, and did not explain how there concensus.

Danteferno apparently did not read or did not understand comments made by me on the gothic metal talk page, where I withdrew my statement on consensus. [300] He's right, there wasn't one, I had misunderstood the definition of it, by thinking that "no objections" is also consensus.

Children of Bodom article - User:130.102.0.176 reverted out a revision by User:Leyasu that was contested by a group of editors on the article's talk page (and resulted in a 24 hour block of User:Leyasu for 3RR of the article). User:Parasti- no participation in the article - asked for justification on the talk page for reverting out User:Leyasu's edit.

Idont Havaname asked everyone the same thing on the talk page of article. [301] No participation does not imply anything but no edits to the article and the talk page. 130.102.0.176 (incidentally also with no prior participation) changed the genre of the band and removed a note Sn0wflake had added [302], which clearly says "do not change the genre". Leyasu did edit it [303], but the edit was also accepted by Sn0wflake with an edit cleaning up Leyasu's addition and a summary of "ok". [304]

Since joining Wiki. December 18th, 2005 [..]

I joined Wikipedia on 2005-12-04 and I have over 300 edits. From Wikipedia's sock puppet policy:

If it appears that sock puppets are being used as part of an edit war or to distort the outcome of a vote or survey, one possible rule of thumb is the 100-edit guideline. This suggests that any account with more than 100 edits is presumed not to be a sock puppet.

I requested a CheckUser on myself and Leyasu, the result was negative [305], but if 300 edits, more than two months of good faith editing, with almost no edit-war-related edits (gothic metal obviously being a recent exception) is not enough, then let me guess, this also proves nothing to Danteferno.

Not only is Danteferno's sock puppet evidence close to being useless, he has also repeatedly accused other editors before myself the same way, in similar situations, without evidence, that way considering his disrespect and personal attacks he makes towards other editors justified. If it wasn't so obvious, I wouldn't even feel offended.

-- parasti (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Leyasu

[edit] Pre-Current Debate

First flame with Dante due to his own unsourced reverts and accusations against me. [306]

Argument on Nu-Goth that was later removed due to the whole thing not being significant enough for Wikipedia which is fair [307]. I also apologised at this point for the way i speak coming across as otherwise agressive or neoglistic, which was completely ignored [308].

First discussion on the bold edit i made. At this point, Dante made no constructive comments except to say everything was POV, Wrong, and A Waste Of Time http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gothic_metal&diff=27410176&oldid=27399193 ]. He also claimed that i was using sock puppets, and cited users who had expressed open disagreement with him [309].

This was the first occasion in which Idont asked for sources. Dante provided one source i went on to question, my argument being that itself, alongside several other sites (including Wikipedia) is mentioned as wrong on Websites, Magazines, Tv Programs, and other media formats [310], [311]. At the end of this, another user went on to leave a comment, which Dante later went on to call a sock puppet, as per the example above [312], [313].

Here i asked Dante to work with me to create a better set of articles that interlinked [314]. I asked again after the first time, and asked Dante to stop the revert war [315]. These proposals, and others like them, went on to be completely ignored.

At this point, a flame war began shortly after the protection of the page due to Dante trying to disguise personal attacks and snide comments in the costume of a thank you note[316], [317]. Dante suggested problems with what was then a quite flawed article, and i questioned these things as well as agreed with some and edited them [318]. This argument everntually consisted of a point where Danteferno decided to claim one form of source was allowed, which he had earlier claimed wasnt [319]. This dragged onto a point were the formatting got so illegible, it was pointless to continue [320].

At this point myself and Dante got into a flamed debate on what was right in each article after an anon contributed a comment that agreed with what i had said [321]. At this point, Dante brought up further points about the article [322]. Normally in resoloution editors will then try to accomodate each other by making suggestions on how to better the problem to a format agreed to by both partys. However, this quickly turned into a flame war when Dante made several references to what he called his original edit, claiming it as the only correct article, provoking me into snide defense [323], [324].

This archive near solely consists of the temp page for the bold version of the article. At this time Dante and Me got involved in debates on every aspect of the article. I personally consider some of this a constructive experience as it taught me some errors in the article, however, most of this degenerated again into a original article perfection type argument. Idont made some appearance here to mediate. At this time i mentioned sources that i had seen and knew of, but didnt know of the exact names for, in similar to the case of adminastrators when i applied for the Abbirition case [325].

A debate here happened in which Dante seemed to assume that user Idont agreed with everything and anything he said [326], [327], [328], [329]. I intervined shortly after, giving my view on the issue, and proposed merging Gothic-Doom and Gothic Metal into one article, mention both together, as the current [[gothic metal[[ article shows [330].

At this point a flame war came into all seriousness, with constant attacks from Danteferno at myself, [331], [332], [333], [334], [335], [336], [337], [338], [339], [340]. No sources were provided by either party that credited or discredited either argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gothic_metal/Archive_5#A_Few_Websites Here i provided several website links to sources that backed my claims [341]. To this Dante claimed they didnt say anything relevant, using it as a slim veil to distract from the personal attacks he made at the same time [342]. When i directed him to the point of each source, he simply said they 'were not allowed' due to his disdain, and throwing more personal attacks at myself [343], [344].

At this point Idont tried to help improve the revision After quizing this to understand Idont's comments better [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gothic_metal&diff=next&oldid=29663548, dante went on to assume the my original article argument [345]. This degenerated rapidly into a flame war based on Dante ignoring all chance to improve the rewrite and instead focusing on my character as a person [346], [347], [348], [349], [350], [351], [352], [353], [354], [355], [356]. He then went on to make more personal attacks at me, attacking my credibility and accusing me of sock puppets http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gothic_metal&diff=next&oldid=29857759].

At this point i chose to list several actions of Dante's that he went on to later repeat [357], [358]. This bore yet more personal attacks from Dante on the basis of 'nobody believed me' and that again i was lying [359]. I tried to tell him that he hadnt been helpfull [360].

At this point i complained about Dante's attitude, quoting the MPOV article in reference to how Dante had come across to me [361]. Idont suggested we take a break from editing [362], but Dante's response to this was yet more personal attacks at me, claiming i was inciting a flame war, was lying, made no significant discussion, made no attempts to make the article better, and never posted any sources [363].

At this point Idont commented on the tamp page [364] [365], which Dante immediatly attacked in its current form [366], in which i responded to each in kind [367]. This was, the most helpfull thing Dante had done in the whole time. This however, degenerated rapidly into a flame war due to many of Danta's proposed resoloutions returning back to his my original article argument whilst making personal attacks about my edits on Wikipedia [368].

At this point a respected and experienced user made a comment about the history of Gothic Metal [369]. Dante immediatly began claiming all other sources other than his own were wrong, before actually asking for someones opinion [370]. Opinion is not allowed on Wikipedia i note, factual accuracy is. I proposed a soloution to the hstory problem that got no objections and was implemented, as can be seen on the current gothic metal article [371].

This was the last point in time i asked help after a long silience from users, so i proposed a date when the revision should be posted, and due to no objections, posted it [372].

[edit] Current Debate

At this point Dante said he had tagged the article with 3 tags because reverting the article to the original would inspire a revert war [373].

Two of these tags were removed by user Parasti [374]. Dante then attempted to start another revert war, making personal attacks in the comment boz [375], [376], [377], [378]. During this i politely told Dante this was vandalism and that discussion should be raised first, and that Vandalism, Personal Attacks and trying to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point would be notified to an admin [379]. To this Dante then assumed the position of making personal attacks at my character and edits, claiming Snowflake dislikes working with me and has abandond talking to me, on the basis of a vendetta with this user [380]. Dante however, was referencing to a comment on my talk page, [381].

I then procedeed to point out several of Dante's actions from the previous debate[382]. Dante then incited flaming techniques, claiming admins wouldnt listen to me and claiming i threatened Snowflake, which, the admin will openly say i never did [383]. I proceded to tell Dante that a consensus is a consensus and he cannot undermine it [384].

He then made more personal attacks, claiming Parasti is a friend of mine, and we were going around Reverting articles willy-nilly for fun [385]. Parasti explained to Dante what making a personal attack was, and then asked him for what he thought was wrong with the article. Dante responded using this as a guise for making more personal attacks at me, [386]. He then made an attack on Parasti claiming the user has not been around long enough to know any of Wikipedia's policys [[387]].

This turned into a 'Whats wrong with the article debate' which became common place with Dante [388]. In the end, this turned into Dante claiming no matter what i said i was wrong, claiming i never gave sources, and that my sources were internet sites that dont countalso stating that he is only using Wikipedia to harass me, and to vandalise the article [389]. When another user got involved in the discussion, giving his opinion on Dante's article [390], Dante claimed the original article was one i had written [391]. When i explained that the user was talking about the article he was defending, he claimed i was obviously wronghttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gothic_metal&diff=next&oldid=35634606]. When the user told Dante themself they were speaking of the article Dante was defending [392], Dante renounced all ties with that article [393].

At this point Dante cited an mediation case that had come up with another user and me. This mediation didnt even last an hour, in the fact i had apologised to the user, as they did not like the way i spoke. He also said he was going to disregard me from then on in. He then claimed he was changing the article to a NPOV version which was his [394].

I posted an RFC [395] and a user came by, asking for a summary [396]. I provided her with two links [397], but she asked for a more detailed version of the summary [398], so i explained my view [399]. Dante then went on to make claim that everything was wrong and we came back to the my original article argument. He also made claims that Idont and Snowflake told me im wrong, which is untrue. Then he made a personal attack, saying i removed bands and information simply because i didnt like the bands or the information, which is untrue when i have worked with the bands before [400]. He then went onto claim i was making reverts against justifed edits on pages, especially the article for the band Cradle of Filth. Dante immediatly began attacking me, claiming my sources were wrong and void, lacking any information on what i said[401]. I then quoted each link, in remand [402].

I listed the differences in the scenes and such that make up the subject of the article, offering it as a template for Dante to construct a template for a temp page with [403]. He ignored this and went on to claim that a bands genre is up to him, regardless of what others think [404]. I then provided sources for each scene, and he ignored them [405].

Here Dante posted his revision [406], and i commented on it, noting it was a near exact replica of the original article, with very little change and that he had completely ignored the information and sources i previously provided [407], [408], [409]. He then went on to claim i never provided any sources, and his sources were 'reputable' [410].

After arguing this, he changed his claim to the sources have nothing to do with the subject matter [411]. He then claimed i was making a personal attack in the fact he was being ignorant of the sources by not reading them [412]. He then claimed Wikipedia Users do not call people certain things if they act that way, unless it suits him, and that my sources never stated anything to do with what i claimed [413].

Parasti at this point stepped in, and criticised the reasoning behind the influences of each band that Dante gave, also telling Dante that he is not allowed to ignore the sources i provide simply because they do not agree with him [414]. Dante then claimed Parasti was simply wrong with no explanation and then went on to attack him, claiming he was only arguing to defend myself [415].

I responded to Dante, telling him he had seemingly ignored the sources, and that he was now openly ignoring users that didnt agree with him, as he had previously stated. I also asked him why he chose to work against other editors instead of working with them [416]. Parasti also responded, explaining to Dante he wasnt here to protect me, but rather to defend what he saw as facts, he also went on asking for both a reason as to why the genre had evolved the way it had [417].

Dante refused to answer, and then went onto again say Parasti was wrong with no explaination, and made assertion that Parasti was a sock puppet of mine [418].

Parasti went on to debate the issue of origins with Dante, recieving nothing more than your wrong because i said so arguments [419]. Eventually Dante made another attack at me, saying 'he wont tell me this, on an issue i had already explained [420]. After re-explaining the issue [421], i left the discussion as no more replies were made.

[edit] Other Incidents

On another note, IDont accused me of slinging mud at Danteferno [422]. As such, since the opening of the Abbiration case, Dante has been slandering me to other users. Danteferno has tried to stir up animosity in a mediation case i was involved in, that has been closed and was solved with a simple apology [423].

I would also like to draw attention to slander that user Danteferno has begun about me to other users i have been in debate with before. The link is [[424]].

Another incident involves Dante removing a warning from the Admin Snowflake within 10 minutes of him posting it, warning Dante about trying to force his POV onto articles and bully other editors [425], [426].

[edit] Children of Bodom Article

Taken from Danteferno's evidence:

  • More recently, the Children of Bodom article (which I have no current involvement in) has been consistently reverted by User:Leyasu regarding a dispute on the band's genre.

This article has been under severe vandalism, including edits such as these, [427],[428], [429], [430], [431]. Other users have also been reverting the same vandal, [432], [433], [434], [435].

[edit] Death Rock

I will point out that in regards to the Death Rock case, the issue was a misunderstanding of language, and the issue was closed with an apology, as the user Filmgal removed her concerns from my talk page when the issue was solved [436].

[edit] Last.Fm Template

Taken from Dante's evidence:

  • User:Leyasu called a user who politely asked him a question on his talk page an "annoyance"

The edit in question is this stream, [437], [438], [439]. This user came across to me as trying to get me to change my vote, and attack me if i didnt. Thus i removed their edits because the issue was closed and i had made my view on it perfectly clear.

[edit] Gothic Metal Rewrite

Dante has spiked attempts at making a revert war, reverting edits i had made to the temp page as part of the revision process, claiming i provided no sources for my edits [440], [441]. This was reverted by myself [442], due to the fact i had provided sources on more than one occasion [443], [444]. He then went on to attack me on the articles talk page [445]. He made claim in that attack that my sources had no relevance to the subject, even though user Parasti already quoted the sites on the Gothic Metal talk page [446].

[edit] The Black Dalia Murder

  • I cite here an argument that Dante had on another article, in which he also used personal attacks at claims of sock puppets in an attempt at forcing his POV on articles. Also i have noticed a patten in Dante's behaviour that goes on to be repeated in both debates about the Gothic Metal article.

Here Dante has a go at another user, claiming the band has something, and ending his statement on the basis 'his' article works fine [447].

Dante then went on to accuse the user of internet trolling on the basis Dante didnt agree with them [448].

The user went on to provide two interviews with the band that proved his point [449], which Dante reverted back on the back on the basis he didnt agree [450].

Dante then went on to proclaim the band was the genre simply because he said so [451], which the other user went on to ask for a link and/or quote [452].

Dante then went on to make claims that the sources existed, but refused to provide a link for them, also deleting parts of the other users comments [453].

Dante then went on to call the user a troll again, for not agreeing with what he wanted in the article [454].

Dante then goes on to say Thus, I feel my version is truly warranted, accurate, and neurtral [455], which is a symptom of Meglomanical Point of View.

This also led, much alike the Gothic Metal article discussion me and Dante were involved with, to the article being protected [456].

The user arguing with Dante went on to make comments on some of Dante's unsourced claims [457], to which Dante replied with personal attacks, calling the user biased, wrong, and claiming my article reflects this neutrally; Yours does not [458], which is a further example of Meglomanical Point of View.

The user responded in kind, pointing out to Dante that he kept changing his claims, and that other users have reverted his edits before [459].

Dante went on to make more unsourced claims, similar to those that he said were disalloed in the Gothic Metal debate [460].

Dante went on to then reply that all users editing him where sock puppets, [461], to which the user pointed out the users where all different.

The user Dante was arguing with eventually gave up having grown tired of Dante's bullying behaviour, and left Wikipedia with a bitter statement [462], to which Dante immediatly replied claiming that he had won through the other user conceding, and that saying consensus is not how Wikipedia works [463].

The user who has supposedly left however, returned, to make comments of fact about Dante which are all true, even mentioning the warning from Snowflake on Dante's talk page [464], which Dante attacked the user back with, claiming that the warning from Snowflake never happened [465].

Dante here went on to claim all anomynous editors are trolls, and they only edit Wikipedia to disrupt it [466].

He then went on to boast about harrassing the user outside of Wikipedia, asking for other users to also join in the harrasment [467].

This resulted in a caution from an Admin to all users, about harassing users in the manner that Dante has done [468].

Dante went on to claim the user as trolling again and himself as innocent, also claiming that another incident with himself happened on the System of a Down article [469], which i am now looking into.

The Admin then went on to explain to Dante that anomynous users were valued and that attacking them simply due to being unregistered violates Wikipedia policys [470], to which Dante responded claiming the other user was a vandal regardless of what the admin said, and also claiming my version most obviously reflects that The Black Dahlia Murder's genre has been under debate [471].

The admin then went on to tell Dante that his 'your wrong because i said so' argument has no place on Wikipedia and offered a comprimise soloution [472], to which the noymous user agreed [473], with Dante also using it as a guile for further personal attacks [474].

The admin attempted to close of the revert warring with a request for sources from either party [475], Dante made a NPOV suggestion here which lacked sources for either argument [476].

The admin followed this up by again requesting sources [477], going on to provide a source and quoting it, that conflicts with Dante's argument [478].

Dante went on to provide a source citing a claim the band made, going on to ask questions of the band [479], in a similar way to which i have done which Dante has said is not allowed.

The admin made a suggestion for editing the article [480], to which Dante claims the "Classification" section I made is pretty impartial in this regard, IMHO [481].

Dante goes on to claim the band is a specific genre on the basis he see's them that way and they play with certain bands of that style [482], the anomynous user comes back to say You just keep throwing in my face that they play with many metalcore bands and that fans of metalcore listen to them. OKAY THEY OFTEN TOUR WITH METALCORE BANDS, put it in the article if you want, but don't call them metalcore just because of that [483] when Dante fails again to give a reason as to them being the genre he proclaims them to be.

Dante then goes on to make claims about the band that are untrue given the sources already provided by himself, the admin, and the anymonous user [484].

Dante then goes on to claim several places have claimed things, yet providing no sources or links for any of them, and ending the statement on a patronizing 'LOL' as if to try to belitte the other user [485].

  • After reading this evidence, and the debates on the Gothic Metal article, i would like to point out the following behavioural patterns that Dante has followed:
  • Unsourced Claims
    Disregarding sources that dont agree with himself
    Claiming ownership of the article
    Calling any editor who doesnt agree with him a sock pupper of another
    Avoiding answering questions by making personal attacks

[edit] Dante's Hypocriticism

Dante has on several occasions accused myself of editing articles and adding unsourced claims to them. Dante however has also done this, mostly himself revolving around changing the genre's on articles about bands according to his own view whilst giving no sources, [486], [487], [488], [489], [490]. I will also shortly add to evidence several occasions on which Dante has violated the 3RR rule.

Taken from Dante's evidence:

  • The Nu metal article (and other things mentioned by User:Parasti) is another example of my very early tenure on Wikipedia; my tone has since been nicer and more refined with experience, which makes most of these incidents rather outdated in comparison to more recent matters.

As shown above, actions that Dante made in this article, the Black Dhalia Murder article, and many other articles, have also been repeated in the Gothic Metal article, and in the abbiration case, including accusations of Sock Puppets, Personal Attacks, Disregarding Sources and POV Pushing.

Taken from Dante's evidence:

  • User:Parasti also wrote here: "Danteferno accuses anyone he disagrees with as being a sock puppet."[491]

The same diff is also here. Which shows at no point Parasti claiming that Dante accuses everyone of being a sock puppet. This shows further example of Dante's lies and unsourced claims.

[edit] Goth Article

Im currently involved in a debate as to wether a section of the article should be removed or not. Me and the main user fronting the disagreement are both biased, and other editors have contributed to both sides, drawing a deadlock, [492], [493], [494], [495].

A Request For Comments has been made and is being awaited upon, to solve the deadlock of views [496].

Taken from Dante's evidence:

  • While there isn't a revert war (yet), User:Leyasu has also been pushing his POV on the Goth article, an edit which one editor described as using weasel words.

The section the user edited wasnt actually added by myself, in fact, my edits to this section meerly constituted minor copyediting: [497], [498].

Taken from Dante's evidence:

The user who made the edit here [499], also claimed that NPOV doesnt mean representing all POV's equally, he went on to imply that it means reflecting one POV favourably.

Taken from Dante's evidence:

  • eventhough the only editor with disagreement was User:Leyasu.

I have already provided proof of another user protesting against the removel, which was done before Dante posted this evidence, which consitute's as slander from Danteferno in the evidence box.

[edit] Gothic Metal/Rewrite

Taken from Danteferno's evidence:

  • he then reverted it back to his version with false claims that "sources were provided" and that I was "vandalizing" the page.

I made this revert [500] indeed noting that Dante had vandalised the page, and also has shown above, provided sources that Danteferno chose to ignore before he posted the rwerite [501], [502].

[edit] Melodic Death Metal

Taken from Dante's evidence:

  • He also consistently reverted off Children of Bodom's inclusion on the melodic death metal page, placing this warning for editors: "do not add bands without discussion on the talk page, this includes over all bands Children of Bodom whos genre has been determined as not being Melodic Death Metal and adding the band to the list will be considered vandalism."

The warning was added long before i even came to Wikipedia [503].

It is indeed true, that i expanded the warning on the page [504], but this was after a series of vandalistic edits [505], [506], [507], in which each time i directed the users to the Talk Page and Children of Bodom article.

After further vandalism, i eventually expanded the warning, in a hope of warding off further vandalism [508], which it subesquently did.

Taken from Dante's evidence:

  • (There was no "determination" anywhere about the band's genre.)

Dante has seemingly chosen to emmit the long discussion on the bands genre, that happened on the talk page [509], [510], [511], [512], [513], [514], [515], [516], [517].

[edit] Dante's Slander

Dante has shown above has slandered myself on more than one occasion, and is still persisting in doing so now. His latest resume is inciting flame wars, spite and making accusations of sock puppets at me and Parasti on the Goth Article [518].

When i politely suggested that the question Dante used to vail his Personal Attacks at me and Parasti would be better on the Gothic Rock article (which Dante's question was effectivly are Dead Can Dance Gothic Rock) [519], he could not help but try to incite another flame war with me by being snide [520].

Taken from Dante's evidence:

  • User:Leyasu falsely claimed again that "sources were already provided" and that I just "ignored" them.

As can be seen above, i supplied sources on several occasions which both I and user Parasti have shown, where ignored because Dante admitted to ignoring them.

[edit] Idont's Evidence

Taken from Idont's evidence:

  • Leyasu reverted an expansion to Heavy metal music instead of merely fixing it to make it more NPOV

This is true, and i also made comment about it on the Heavy Metal Music talk page after another user brought this up [521], [522], explaining that i dont delete contributions without cause.

Taken from Idont's evidence:

  • Leyasu bit a newbie, accused him of bias, and said he'd be starting an RfC following this revert.

It is true, i did bite a newbie with my tone in this, and i later went on to apologise because it wasnt my intention [523], which Idont has seemingly ignored.

Taken from Idont's evidence:

  • Leyasu reverted this 'diff', saying it was an unsourced claim

The diff is here [524], which was an unsourced claim by Danteferno, changing the bands genre to enforce a POV already disproven on the Gothic Metal talk page, as can be seen in the evidence i have supplied above.

Concenring Idont's attacks at me and my edits on the Children of Bodom page, i point out that the users has disregarded sources in the same way as Dante, on the basis they do not count unless they agree with their POV [525], after i already explained an editorial consensus was reached long before i even approached the article.

Concerning the above paragraph. When i say the editors, i meant the editors on the Children of Bodom talk page, not Idont. I didnt realise things came across this way until Idont pointed them out here [526], to which i have since apologised to Idont here [527] concerning this misunderstaning.

I also point out that i also explained to the users to remember that citing sources and neutrel point of view are paramount in Wikipedia [528], also giving them an example of npov as they requested.

I also supplied sources in defense of my edits to the page [529] including the bands own website which details exactly what they do, and i am currently in the process of drawing up a template for a section concerning the controversy of Children of Bodom's genre, similar to that of the Cradle of Filth article.

[edit] Sock Puppets

Taken from Dante's evidence:

  • in which he was blocked a 2nd time for 3RR.

This is because i asked the admin Idont to do so as a matter of principle, to stop the vandalism and revert war [530]. Taken from Dante's evidence:

  • User:Parasti and User:Leyasu either start with "Revert." or "Rv." in their edit summary when reverting an edit.

This is also true for other users, and so calling us for something hundreds of editors do is folly.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Leyasu_Evidence_c9ef.html"