User talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi. I nominate this as my main and only account.

Note to administrators:

I wish to nominate User:ApocalypticDestroyer's as my main and only account. I cannot access the accounts: User:RevolverOcelotX, User:Apocalyptic Destroyer, User:Guardian Tiger, or any other account except the one I'm currently using now. Please read User talk:Guardian Tiger for more details. Please notify the community that I nominate ApocalypticDestroyer's as my main and only account. You may block the other accounts except my nominated main account as necessary or request another admin to do it. If there is any other procedure needed, please notify me. Thanks. ApocalypticDestroyer's 21:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey![edit]

I assuming that is is your new account. In that case, please transfer stuff from User:Apocalyptic Destroyer to this account by contacting an admin. =) Jumping cheese Cont@ct 09:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jumping cheese, I will transfer stuff from User:Apocalyptic Destroyer and try to contact an admin. ApocalypticDestroyer's 20:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Face[edit]

Please choose one account, publically nominate it as your main account, and stick to it. There is no 'right' to use multiple accounts. It is often tolerated, but not where it causes trouble. Any account except your nominated main account may be blocked at any time for any transgression at all, period. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ben Aveling, thanks for contacting me on this talk page. Are you an admin on Wikipedia? I wish to nominate User:ApocalypticDestroyer's as my main and only account. I intentionally had to create this account because there was no other way for me to communicate with you since User:Guardian Tiger has been blocked and the talk page protected. I cannot access the accounts: User:RevolverOcelotX, User:Apocalyptic Destroyer, or any other account except the one I'm currently using now. Please notify the community that I nominate ApocalypticDestroyer's as my main and only account. You may block the other accounts except my nominated main account as necessary or request another admin to do it. Thanks. ApocalypticDestroyer's 20:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You created this account (Dec. 8)[1] long before Guardian Tiger was blocked (Jan. 12)[2]. Anyways, I guess it's up to the admins. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 09:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, hold on. You already created another account, which you also nominated to be you main account, User:ApocalypticDestroyer's. I'm a little lost here. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 09:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping cheese, unfortunately I've lost access to all my old accounts including Apocalyptic Destroyer. I intend to nominate ApocalypticDestroyer's as my main and only account. Does that seem clear? ApocalypticDestroyer's 20:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my bad. I didn't see the 's in the new account, so I got kind of confused. Sorry about that. =) Jumping cheese Cont@ct 08:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you manage to lose so many accounts? Please do not create any more accounts. Evading a block, even a wrongly imposed one, is grounds for being blocked. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I lost those accounts because I did not used them in the same time frame and did not used them in parallel. I promise not create any more accounts and will stick to this one account as my main and only account. ApocalypticDestroyer's 20:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your message on ANI[edit]

Hi, I saw your message. It looks good to me and I'll do what I can to persuade people that you shouldn't be punished anew for old mistakes. But do not make the same mistakes again, or you will be permanatly blocked. Lastly, I believe you owe an apology to Bishnonen and Isberg for this edit: [3] Regards, Ben Aveling 07:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I suggest you set an email address for this account. Then, if you do forget your password, you can recover it. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I will apologise to Bishonen and Isberg for posting on Isberg talkpage. However, Bishonen already admitted that Isberg is his sockpuppet. I promise not to make same mistakes again. ApocalypticDestroyer's 20:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not looking good. People are convinced you've been abusive. Personally, that's not what I saw in your contributions, and I've said so on ANI. If there's anything abusive you've said or done that I've missed, then I suggest that now is a good time for you to bring it up and apologise before someone else points it out. Because either way, you'll be made to apologise for it before you're unblocked. If there isn't anything, then ANI has made a mistake. That's not common, but I'll keep trying to persuade them and I'm sure they'll keep trying to persuade me. We'll see what happens. Best of luck, Ben Aveling 11:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help Ben Aveling. There is nothing abusive about anything I've said or done that warrants a community ban for "disruption". Another user, Sumple has explained the situation here. I will apologise if necessary and promise not to do anything not to do anything abusive. Unfortunately, I've been currently indef blocked so there is no way for me to defend myself on ANI. I believe ANI has made a mistake. I intend to make useful contributions on this account. Please tell me how I can get unblocked. Thanks, ApocalypticDestroyer's 20:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, my apologies over Isberg, I was wrong, you were right. I thought it was a sock, but I didn't think it would be Bishonen's. You still owe her an apology for suggesting that she is not neutral. She may be mistaken, but she is not biased. As for ANI, I can act as your advocate. But first I suggest we give people a chance to respond to what I've already written, and then see what still needs to addressed.
I know it can be annoying to have to wait when you'd rather be making a contribution. Maybe you might like to have a look at WP:MISSING and WP:WANTED and find an article you'd like to create. You can use the time that you're blocked to research and write a draft? Regards, Ben Aveling 21:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will apologise to Bishonen for suggesting that she is not neutral. I'll wait and see how the ANI thread turns out. Hopefully, more users I've interacted in the past will have a chance to comment on it. ApocalypticDestroyer's 22:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'm still looking through your old edits - there are a lot of them. The problem for me is that even though there may not be any individual edit that is abusive, the collective effect of them might still be considered as being difficult. I realise there are other difficult editors out there, but that's life. Everyone has to be able to deal with that without getting too annoyed too often.

A couple of questions for you to help me.

  1. Apart from User:RevolverOcelotX, User:Apocalyptic Destroyer, and User:Guardian Tiger, what other accounts have you used in the past?
  2. What is suspicious about October 8?
  3. If I can get you unblocked, what sort of contribution do you expect to make to wikipedia? (Remember that wikilinking every instance of the word China is not considered a big contribution.)
  4. Assuming you meet other editors with whom you disagree, how will you handle it in the future?
  5. Would you agree to stay away from articles about China and Taiwan?
  6. I'm sure you've seen User_talk:Certified.Gangsta#User:Guardian Tiger Timeline. I'm sure it's not a complete picture of what happened, but are the facts he presents there accurate?
  7. Is there anything that we should post on ANI that hasn't already been said?

I'm still trying to work out how to build the case for the defence. It's difficult because the accusations against you are fairly vague, possibly because the offence people have taken hasn't come from any single post so much as the cummulative effect of a lot of posts.

Regards, Ben Aveling 11:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for contacting me. I've had alot of old edits from my past account, but most of them are on User:RevolverOcelotX. I'll try my best to answer the questions.
  1. Apart from User:RevolverOcelotX, User:Apocalyptic Destroyer, and User:Guardian Tiger, another account I used for a short time was User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH. However, the vast majority of my old edits comes from my original account User:RevolverOcelotX, which I had accumulated over 4000 edits on.
  2. I'm not sure what you mean by October 8. Could you explain further?
  3. If I can get unblocked, I expect to make different sorts of contributions than I have in the past. My interests include a wide range of articles such as East Asian history, Japan-related articles, and Video Games article.
  4. If I meet other editors I disagree with, I will try to handle it by using the talk page instead of edit warring.
  5. If necessary, I will agree to stay away from articles about China and Taiwan.
  6. I've seen the "User:Guardian Tiger Timeline". I think it is a very distorted view of what happened and is very inaccurate. Most of the diffs Certified.Gangsta cited are content disputes and reasonable edits.
  7. I'm not sure what else we could post on ANI but I believe not enough people had a chance to comment on the ANI thread. I am hoping that some editors who has interacted with myself and Certified.Gangsta in the past will have a chance to comment on the ANI thread such as: User:Sumple, User:Nic tan33, User:Jiang, and User:Enochlau. Perhaps you can help contact them about the discussion on ANI?

I've also noticed the accusations against me are are fairly vague but it doesn't seem like there is a clear consensus for a community ban on ANI. I don't think there are any edits I've made that justifies a ban for disruption. User:Dmcdevit has said, "I will consider him and any and all of his sockpuppets and IPs from now on banned from Wikipedia unless anyone gives me any reason not too." He didn't seem to reply yet after getting some reasons though. Thanks for helping me build the case for the defence. Please let me know what I can do to get unblocked. ApocalypticDestroyer's 00:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from User:RevolverOcelotX, User:Apocalyptic Destroyer, and User:Guardian Tiger, another account I used for a short time was User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH. However, the vast majority of my old edits comes from my original account User:RevolverOcelotX, which I had accumulated over 4000 edits on.
And you are completely sure there are no others? There wasn't another account before RevolverOcelotX?
I'm not sure what you mean by October 8. Could you explain further?
You said the Isberg creation date/time was suspicious. Why did you say that?
If I can get unblocked, I expect to make different sorts of contributions than I have in the past. My interests include a wide range of articles such as East Asian history, Japan-related articles, and Video Games article.
Video Game articles sound the safest, though I could be wrong. I've seen some pretty nasty fights at King Bowser, don't ask me why. What sort of contributions would you make on those pages. What content would you add, or what changes would you make?
I've seen the "User:Guardian Tiger Timeline". I think it is a very distorted view of what happened and is very inaccurate. Most of the diffs Certified.Gangsta cited are content disputes and reasonable edits.
We're probably going to have to go through each one and look at what was said and show that it has been misrepresented. I have to head off now. The first thing we have to do is extract the facts from his history, just presenting the facts without any comments about why anyone did anything, just saying, this is what happened. Once we've done that we can work out how to respond to it. The idea is to show that you have been misrepresented. I've made a start below. Can you keep going? Regards, Ben Aveling 22:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking so long to reply, Ben Aveling. As I've said before, the earliest account I've been editing with was User:RevolverOcelotX. I've made many valuable contributions on the account User:RevolverOcelotX. As for October 8, I don't think there is anything suspicious about it except that I thought the User:Isberg was a relatively new account and a likely sockpuppet. The relevant ANI thread seemed to have died down and there don't seem to be a strong consensus my "community ban for disruption". The official policy states "Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users". Could you revive the ANI thread or make a new thread on ANI about my ban?
User:Dmcdevit has "Regardless of which is the sock and which the main account, which has been blocked as a sock, and whether he's been banned or just blocked before, these accounts are all the same person, and I've blocked Apocalyptic Destroyer now too, and I will consider him and any and all of his sockpuppets and IPs from now on banned from Wikipedia unless anyone gives me any reason not too. The community's patience with him is exhausted. Dmcdevit·t 08:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
I don't know why I'm still "community banned" even though somebody game him a "reason not too". Could you contact Dmcdevit about the ANI thread since he didn't reply to it or contact another admin about lifting my block since there is no strong consensus for my "community ban for disruption"? I have done everything in my power to remain as civil as I am able under pressing circumstances. Nobody on ANI has cited any diffs to any gross abuse, harrasment, disruption that justifies this block. I wish to be unblocked ASAP so I can do some useful editing. I am pressing to bring this to an uninvolved administrator's attention. Can you simply just contact an administrator to review the ANI thread and lift this block? Thanks. ApocalypticDestroyer's 01:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't think there was strong support for the ban, I don't think there was much opposition either. Once people determined that you were a sock, they accepted at face value the claim that you were an 'abusive' sock. That's why I want to dig into the timeline, and show that while you were a sock, you were not abusive. So we can go to people and say, look, he's been misrepresented. This is what happened, nothing abusive. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there wasn't strong support or opposition for the ban. User:Dmcdevit put "community ban for disruption" in my block log which IMO seems misleading because there wasn't strong support for it on ANI. I just find it strange that User:Dmcdevit said "unless anyone gives me any reason not too" on ANI but didn't reply afterwards on the ANI thread. But the relevant ANI thread seem to have died down. Could you revive the thread or make another post on ANI to help get the attention of other administrators? ApocalypticDestroyer's 03:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the emotive language, what's below seems to be the bones of prosecution case against Guardian Tiger. Without worrying yet about why the actions occurred, can you check that the below is a true and accurate representation of what is shown by the diffs. Some of the diffs provided aren't as good as they could be, they only show the last of a series of changes. But they should be good enough for the moment. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to do with this "timeline". I don't think the prosecution case is even relevant to this timeline as Certified.Gangsta is the only person citing it. Regards, ApocalypticDestroyer's 01:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other people have taken him at his word - that you are an abusive sock. So we need to show that your behaviour has been reasonably good. Think of Gangsta as the prosecuting attourney in this, and the admins as the judges. He's presented his evidence. The admins don't want to spend a lot of their time, so we have to make things as easy as possible for them, pull all the evidence together so they can just look at it and see what happened. Looking at the diffs, I can see that you have made some mistakes, so it is going to be a combination of asking for forgiveness and pleading misrepresentation. Continued below. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. Personally, I think that just by looking through my contributions and Certified.Gangsta's contributions is enough to show that Certified.Gangsta's accusations are false. I'll try to answer the questions below. Personally, I think that my own contributions, Certified.Gangsta's contributions, and the diffs given speak for themselves. Please help restart another post on ANI or bring this to an administrator's attention after reviewing the evidence as necessary. I think User:Sumple has explained the situation here and provided some relevant diffs here.
User:Sumple has said:
"I see. By analogy, User:Certified.Gangsta should have been blocked a long time ago.::: Here is a removal of a talkpage post on the purported basis that it's an "unjust accusation".::: Here is a racist attack.
Here, here, and here are some evidence of stalking.::: Here, here, and here are some evidence of systematic vandalism.
No, I don't agree with the approach of User:RevolverOcetlotX or whatever he's called this week, but I find it ridiculous that someone like User:Certified.Gangsta, who is either a blatant vandal and troll, or ignorant as a cucumber, can be allowed to run around wasting everyone else's time when others who are not nearly as disruptive (i.e. User:RevolverOcelotX) are being indef blocked.
If you don't believe me about the vandal/troll/cucumber comment, look through the history of the diffs I supplied above: almost every single one of User:Certified.Gangsta's article edtis gets reverted by reputable editors. No doubt User:Certified.Gangsta will claim that they are all the same people/all sockpuppets of each other/all Communist China stooges, but such claims only goes to prove my point.
Anyway, I have vented my spleen. I have no intention to do anything about my dissatisfaction. Thank you for your time, and happy editing. --Sumple (Talk) 12:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

I've expanded a few more diffs. I think the rest speak for themselves. I think you're right that it's time to start talking to the relevant people (User:Bishonen, User:Dmcdevit and User:Certified.Gangsta) and seeing what they think. I think they'll be convinced enough to at least engage in discussion. Cheers, Ben Aveling 10:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Guardian Tiger Timeline[edit]

This is extracted from information provided by User:Certified.Gangsta. See also [4]

January 4

Question. What led to this? Why did Gangsta take an interest in this account?
Certified.Gangsta took an interest in this account because of Certified.Gangsta and myself have been in many content disputes on China and Taiwan related pages in the past. These happened between myself and Certified.Gangsta on my old account User:RevolverOcelotX. Certified.Gangsta began stalking me and campaigning for blocking of my account as soon as he found out about my account.

January 7

  • User:Guardian Tiger posting several warnings on Certfied.Gansta's talkpage [7] accusing Certified.Gangsta of being a "blatant" vandal.
Question. What do you want to say about this? It clearly wasn't vandalism on his part.
I'll admit that I made a mistake in accusing Certified.Gangsta of vandalism on his talk page. I did find however find it harassing that Certified.Gangsta was repeatedly placing 'suspected sockpuppet' tags on the userpage of my active account. [8] [9] [10]

January 8

  • Certified.Gangsta deleted the warnings [11]
  • Allegedly improper page move by Guardian Tiger (reverted by Certified.Gangsta). [12]
By move, I think he means merge? Did you do the whole merge, or did you just replace the page with a redirect? Why does he think this was improper? It has been proposed for a month with no objections on the talk page.
I had redirected the page because because I found the articles covers the same topic and the content was very similar. I don't know why he thought the merge was improper but the merge was proposed several months ago on the talk page without any objections.
Nlu, there is no evidence of policy violation here, so no rationale for a check other than a hunch. This is a retaliatory request by Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs). None of the accounts Certified.Gangsta mentioned are blocked. For the record, Certified.Gangsta has been mass POV pushing and edit warring in China/Taiwan related articles. In addition, Certified.Gangsta has vandalized my userpage and a few other userpages without any evidence. [14] See his block log and his contributions for more details. Thanks. Guardian Tiger 21:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call that a personal attack, although you were wrong when you said that "None of the accounts Certified.Gangsta mentioned are blocked."
I don't think I had made any personal attacks and I think that Certified.Gangsta has repeatedly accused me of personal attacks when I didn't make any. I admit that I was wrong in the my latter statement though.
What to say about this? Posting the same message over and over wasn't a very constructive approach.
I admit that I made a mistake in posting the same message on Certified.Gangsta's talk page. But the alleged 'POV edits' that Certified.Gangsta accused me of is a content dispute on those pages. It is worth noting that other editors had also reverted Certified.Gangsta's edits on those pages. [26]

January 10

  • User:Guardian Tiger allegedly began stalking Certified.Gangsta and indiscriminately reverting edits on pages inconsistent with Guardian Tiger's usual editing pattern. [27] [28] [29].
What to say about this? Were these pages that you had edited before? Were you following Gangsta around?
The Wigger page was a page that I had edited previously on User:RevolverOcelotX. But it was my mistake to edit the Keeley Hazell page and I apologize for that.
  • Moved a page apparently without consensus and was reverted by Certified.Gangsta. [30] [31] [32].
  • Alleged POV pushing: [33]
  • Alleged that in response to this edit [34], User:Guardian Tiger page spammed [35].
Thanks for the encouraging words. If you have a growing suspicion, which is obvious since the user's edit pattern and behaviors are so similar, please file a checkuser. I just don't have the time myself. A good place to start is Bruce Lee where all 4 users are extremely zealous in editing and had gotten into numberous content disputes in that particular article. One of the socks User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH is ban indefinitely so these new socks are without a doubt ban-evading sockpuppets and should be blocked on sight. Some other common and disrupting pattern this users and his socks do is constantly adding wikiproject: china tag to every single article, stalking my contributions and revert everything I edited, sometimes out of his usual scope (which is making hostile edits about Taiwan and Japan related articles and spreading communist propaganda) [[36]], [[37]] and lots more. If you're interested, feel free to contact me.--Certified.Gangsta 18:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence of policy violation here, so no rationale for a check other than a hunch. Certified.Gangsta has a history of filing false checkusers as shown in his contributions. Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) is now resorting to censoring and deleting all my comments from his talk page. Guardian Tiger 19:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allegedly disrupted an conversation between Certified.Gangsta and User:Nlu [38].
I was just about to file a checkuser when I noticed someone posted on my talkpage saying a checkuser was previously filed before but unfortunately rejected due to disruption on the checkuser page by this user Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RevolverOcelotX. I will still appreciate if you file the checkuser if you have time or get another established editor to file it since the evidence is extremely obvious.--Certified.Gangsta 18:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no grounds or evidence to file a checkuser. Certified.Gangsta has a history of filing false checkusers as shown in his contributions. Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) is now REPEATEDLY VANDALIZING my userpage. Can you take a look at this? Guardian Tiger 18:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alleged that in response to a check-user request [39], Guardian Tiger spammed the checkuser page with personal attacks against Certified.Gangsta [40]
This is the 3rd time this checkuser is requested and it is become extremely obvious that Apocalyptic Destroyer and Guardian Tiger are ban-evaing socks of the indef. blocked account RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH. All accounts have history of mass vandalism, POV pushing especially making hostile edits in Taiwan and Japan related articles as well as spreading communist propaganda [[41]], spamming talkpages [[42]] [[43]] [[44]], disrupting checkuser requests (see below), edit war in Bruce Lee [[45]] (see history there are too many of them), stalking other's contributions [[46]] [[47]] and harassing others on talkpages (mostly on me). The above diffs. are all based on his newest sock. A detailed report on his conduct (on main account) can be view on [[48]]. His second edits on Guardian is to remove sock tag on Revolver and other accounts. I will also make it clear that if I am wrong about this, I will NOT edit for a month, you guys can block me. PLEASE accept this checkuser.--Certified.Gangsta 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) has shown no actual policy violations or violations of WP:SOCK. Certified.Gangsta has a history of filing false and unwarranted checkusers and reports as shown by the first report filed by Certified.Gangsta, formerly known as Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs) before he changed his username. Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) has also repeatedly vandalized my userpage See Certified.Gangsta's block log and contributions for details. This request is a repost of the previously declined request. Guardian Tiger 19:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 11

  • Made a revert with a misleading edit summary [51]
What to say about this? (The edit summary looks misleading to me.)
It was my mistake to use an edit summary like that. I could have been more clear in the edit summary. ApocalypticDestroyer's 03:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socks or reincarnations?[edit]

01:59, 31 July 2006 Kungfuadam (Talk | contribs) blocked "RevolverOcelotX (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (you (and bonafide hustler) have ended my patiences with these edit wars and attacks on one another)
10:15, 28 July 2006 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) blocked "RevolverOcelotX (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Chinease)
06:11, 5 June 2006 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "RevolverOcelotX (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR at Mao: The Unknown Story)
01:42, 22 May 2006 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "RevolverOcelotX (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RRV and warned other user in dispute about 3RRV so need for cautionary talk warning.)
Most recent contribution:
04:37, 7 September 2006 (hist) (diff) List of cities in China
04:44, 1 November 2006 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) blocked "RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet of user:RevolverOcelotX)
Most recent contribution:
05:51, 2 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH
08:25, 15 January 2007 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) blocked "Apocalyptic Destroyer (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (community ban for disruption, see Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#.5B.5BUser:Guardian_Tiger.7CGuardian_Tiger.5D.5D_and_the_unblock_template)
Most recent contribution:
00:27, 21 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:NawlinWiki/Archive 6 (self rv)
01:10, 13 January 2007 Bishonen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Guardian Tiger (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusive sock of User:RevolverOcelotX)
Most recent contribution:
22:31, 13 January 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Guardian Tiger (?Requesting review of unjustified block)
08:25, 15 January 2007 Dmcdevit (Talk | contribs) blocked "ApocalypticDestroyer's (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (community ban for disruption, see Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#.5B.5BUser:Guardian_Tiger.7CGuardian_Tiger.5D.5D_and_the_unblock_template)

Some light reading.[edit]

Hi, You might be interested in this: Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great.

I'm still going back through the edit history, trying to put together the case that shows that you shouldn't have received an indef ban. Eventually I'll get you to put an unblock request on this page. But we only get one chance at this, so I want to make sure the case is watertight. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've seen the discussion on User talk:Certified.Gangsta, User talk:Bishonen, User talk:Dmcdevit, and other talk pages but it doesn't seem like the admins have replied and given their opinions yet. I don't think argueing this on Certified.Gangsta's talk page is effective because it will quickly come down to a matter of content disputes because there are a few editors of this site which have clashed with me at different articles. I think this is a separate issue and requires the attention of an admin. Looking at the above evidence, I think my previous accounts above were reincarnations rather than socks because they were all editing at different times. I think we should post this on ANI and perhaps revive the previous previous ANI thread rather than posting an unblock request here because it would allow more editors and uninvolved admins to comment on it. It would also allow the larger community to review this block. Thanks. ApocalypticDestroyer's 23:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably do both. Post the unblock request (I'm feeling a need to really follow the rules and guidelines as precisely as possible) and post a message on ANI letting people know it's been posted for their comment. But not yet. At least, I don't think we'd succeed yet. Sorry, Ben Aveling 12:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what we still need to do to get my account unblocked. The few editors which I have alluded to earlier which have clashed with me at different articles are User:Certified.Gangsta at China and Taiwan-related articles; and User:ShuckyDucky mostly at the Bruce Lee article. However, I don't think these disputes I have had are very relevant here because I believe they are strictly a matter of content disputes and are not policy violations. I think the case is fairly watertight and we have enough alot of evidence above for this matter to be successful if we take this back to ANI. However, I don't think this page, User talk:BenAveling/RevolverOcelotX allegations, is necessary and I think it may be encroaching on my privacy. I don't think anybody has provided any substance to the allegations, but I think I've been unfairly blocked for many days now, which I could have been improving and expanding different articles. I wish to be unblocked ASAP because I want to do some useful editing and I promise not to make the same mistakes I did in the past. I think the best option now is to take this back to ANI ASAP. Please put this talk page on your watchlist. Thanks. ApocalypticDestroyer's 12:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have this page watchlisted. I have 1,290 pages watchlisted. I did type a reply to you this morning, but I can't see it in the history. Maybe I hit the wrong button. Anyway, I've blanked that page. On reflection, it probably isn't necessary, unless we need to deal with specific claims. What do you want to say at ANI? Maybe something like "User requests a review and a lifting of the perma block. Acknowledges the following mistakes ... Promises not to do .... Denys having ever .... Wants to contribute by ... If asked, is prepared to ... " Something like that? Ben Aveling 10:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think saying something like "User requests a review and a lifting of the perma block. Acknowledges the following mistakes ... Promises not to do .... Denys having ever .... Wants to contribute by ..." on ANI is good. It might also help to post some of the evidence from above. It would probably also be a good idea to link to this talk page and the previous ANI thread to show that there is no strong consensus for a community ban of all accounts. Please let me know when you've posted on ANI and if there is anything else that needs to be done. Thanks. ApocalypticDestroyer's 12:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Can you do a draft? If you fill as many dots as you can, I'll help with the rest. Thanks, Ben Aveling 20:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft appeal[edit]

Hi, I'll try to do a draft here.
"User:ApocalypticDestroyer's requests a review and a lifting of the permanent block. He acknowledges his past mistakes and promises not to make the same mistakes again. He promise to no longer engage in content disputes without discussion, but discuss them with users involved. He has used a number of accounts in the past, but never more than one at a time.[52]. He has made many positive contributions in the past as shown on his contributions page. He wishes to nominate User:ApocalypticDestroyer's as his main and only account, and will stick to it. Please refer to the previous ANI thread, where there is no strong consensus for a community ban. Further evidence can be found on his talk page. He wants to be unblocked so he can do useful editing and contribute usefully on wikipedia."
Feel free to expand this and edit this as necessary. Thanks, ApocalypticDestroyer's 01:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Will do. Ben Aveling 21:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That might do. You've offered to stay away from articles that concern China and Taiwan, and to change your username if people request it. Shall we mention both of those things? Regards, Ben Aveling 21:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't think it is necessary to mention the first suggestion at the moment. I believe I'm capable of working together with others in various articles. About the second suggestion, I would agree to change my username if people request it. Please let me know when you're ready to post the appeal. Thanks. ApocalypticDestroyer's 08:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now is good for me. I'll be around for a few hours to field questions. Can you stick around? Probably people will have some questions for you. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC) PS. I'll have to let the 'involved' parties know. That is, Certified, Shucky and Sumple.[reply]
Hi, I'll try to stick around for a few hours in case people may have some questions for me. Thanks. ApocalypticDestroyer's 08:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. On my way. Wish us luck. Ben Aveling 08:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Best of luck. ApocalypticDestroyer's 10:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deindent Nothing yet. I'm going to log out and grab some sleep. I'll be back in the morning, see if anyone has an opinion either way. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request?[edit]

Hi, Not much chatter. Maybe it's time to make an unblock request? We can reference Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive192#User:ApocalypticDestroyer.27s requests a review and a lifting of the permanent_block. as evidence that there isn't support for the block. I guess the other option is to go to RFC. What do you think? Ben Aveling 07:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another option: Wikipedia:Community noticeboard. Let me know if you want to post there? Regards, Ben Aveling 23:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've seen Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive192#User:ApocalypticDestroyer.27s requests a review and a lifting of the permanent_block. but unfortunately it was archived before an admin could review it and lift the block. I agree that there isn't strong support for the block. Is it possible to unarchive the old thread or post a new thread on ANI again? Thanks. ApocalypticDestroyer's 02:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like nobody except Certified Gangsta has any objections, and his objection seems to be that you're blocked, therefore you're blocked forever with no chance of redemption, which I don't think is the wiki-way. I'd unblock you myself if I were an admin. I suggest adding an {{unblock} request, linking to the discussion on on ANI and we'll see what happens. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've seen the previous ANI threads and it doesn't seem like there is any strong support for the block. How should I word the {{unblock}} request? Could you post a message on ANI letting people know it's been posted for their comment when I post my unblock request? On a related note, please see this: [53]. ApocalypticDestroyer's 01:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the threads we can reference as evidence that there isn't support for the block:

Regards, ApocalypticDestroyer's 01:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you need to explain that you were blocked in good faith but in error because you were a sock, which you are, but that you were not and are not disruptive, nor a banned user, and that you cannot and are no longer using the original account. Maybe have a look at [54] and see what other people are putting. Later, Ben Aveling 12:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ApocalypticDestroyer%27s&oldid=1138901259"