Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RevolverOcelotX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RevolverOcelotX}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] RevolverOcelotX (4th request)

main edit links history watch
Filed: 00:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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 [[1]], spamming talkpages [[2]] [[3]] [[4]], disrupting checkuser requests (see below), edit war in Bruce Lee [[5]] (see history there are too many of them), stalking other's contributions [[6]] [[7]] 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 [[8]]. 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)

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)
For what it's worth, I recommend that this request be accepted, if anything but to hopefully try to put these issues to rest, so to speak. --Nlu (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I would also ask the check be run. Guardian_Tiger's second edit is to get involved in sockpuppetry pages about RevolverOcelotX; his edit to Keely Hazell has all the appearance of wikistalking Certified.Gangsta. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) has shown no policy violations and made specious accusations of "personal attacks" and "vandalism" of which there are none. If anybody is wikistalking, it is Certified.Gangsta who is mass reverting edits I have made to China/Taiwan related articles. His contributions is closely following mines and speak for themselves. Guardian Tiger 15:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Rejected I see no diffs to support the claim of mass vandalism, and were it true, the accounts would already be blocked. The POV pushing diff seems perfectly reasonable. At this point, the two blocked accounts are too old to check, and I see no justification under the checkuser policy for making this check. The next time Certified.Gangsta files a checkuser request related to any of the above or below parties, he will be blocked for disruption of Wikipedia, and the matter referred to arbitration as necessary. Essjay (Talk) 08:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Essjay, I understand the rejection on the rationale that the blocked accounts are too old to check, but I do think that there is sufficient basis for Certified.Gangsta to have asked for an investigation in the first place, and that therefore the warning was unwarranted. I must say that I was hoping for some kind of resolution to come with regard to this dispute; now, I would guess that it would have to head to an RfC if anything is to be done. --Nlu (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Certified.Gangsta has shown no policy violations and has repeatedly made accusations of "vandalism" of which there are none. I don't think Certified.Gangsta had any basis for repeatedly filing this report, which is repetitive and unwarranted. Guardian Tiger 15:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RevolverOcelotX (third request)

main edit links history watch
Filed: 00:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

As stated above there is mass vandalism, reverts, and POV edits. A large number of reverts were noticed shortly after this account was created mainly on two pages the user used to frequent. These reverts, and info deletion, were made back to original user edits. Note the user has already been banned. ShuckyDucky 00:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk note: sorry, but which user is banned? Neither of them are even blocked (according to their block logs) at the moment. As such, Additional information needed is required to explain this, because I'm at a loss. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 12:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
This "third request" is identical to the declined second request filed here. It was filed before the second request by ShuckyDucky (talk · contribs) who incorrectly edited the archives. None of the users ShuckyDucky listed above have been blocked or banned. As already stated below, there is no evidence of policy violation here, so there is no rationale for a check. This request is a repost of the declined second request. Guardian Tiger 14:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk note • The merits or lack thereof of a checkuser case are for the presiding checkuser to decide. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to simplify and elucidate a little bit. This was my original failed attempt at a check user. I successfully posted a 2nd attempt [here], which is now [here]. The necessary revisions were mad by ElectricEye as noted [here] and [here]. I've made the necessary edits above to include [RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH] and Guardian Tiger. As noted on [RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH]'s page, the user is a sock puppet (of [RevolverOcelotX]) and is banned. As a comparison between the User Contributions from [Apocalyptic Destroyer] and [RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH] shows they are quite similar in their edits. Of specific comparisons are the mass reverts that took place within a day:

  • RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH [edits]
  • Apocalyptic Destroyer [1](all intermediate revisions his) and [2](3 minor revisions were not his).

Please note: the formatting are the same, the deletion of pertinent encyclopedic information in the Filmography section, the inclusion of non-neutral POV Quotes section, and the continued wikifying of the article.

Also Guardian Tiger has continued to implicate "himself" as 70.19.145.44 simply by defending "himself" in this user check and [here]. According to this user's [contributions], he is editing articles the other accounts edit often. He also began a serial of retaliation against me shortly after he created his account:

Declined; RFCU is not an abuse report; it is for specific violations of WP:SOCK, of which you have shown none. Most of these accounts are too old to check, anyway. Please take this to WP:ANI or mediation. Dmcdevit·t 22:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] RevolverOcelotX (second request)

  • Code letter: A, C, E.

Originally I made note here at the bottom. I just wanted it to be known to be people that a mass revert took place by the user Apocalyptic Destroyer. As far as I know the IP 70.19.145.44 who is Guardian Tiger who is Apocalyptic Destroyer, who is RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH who is RevolverOcelotX. The last two users are banned accounts for Sock Puppet and Vandalism. I made a second request for a RevOcX her here and was subsequently deleted by the above IP. The above IP also tagged my IP adress for a 3RR ( here )although I had not made any reversion recently. Then this Guardian Tiger followed me around to edit what I edited. I will make another attempt at a user check because now to me it is obvious the user is using the same (false) bully tactics, and reversions to the same pages to his old user. A quick check to the users contributions (specifically that I know of to this page Bruce Lee ) will show the same reversion and edits were made over and over again. Thank You ShuckyDucky 18:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

  • [9] 02:49, 26 December 2006 Tabletop diff
  • [10] 14:31, 26 December 2006 70.19.145.44],
  • [11] 18:04, 20 December 2006 Shakirfan diff
  • [12] 20:10, 20 December 2006 Apocalyptic Destroyer,
  • [13] 04:45, 19 December 2006 E. Sn0 =31337= diff
  • [14] 01:08, 20 December 2006 Apocalyptic Destroyer.

The last changes are of note they are mass reverts to old edits of the original Sock Puppeteer.ShuckyDucky 18:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence of policy violation here, so no rationale for a check other than a hunch. All of the diff's ShuckyDucky provided are content disputes at the Bruce Lee article. This is a retaliatory request and an abuse of the system by ShuckyDucky (talk · contribs). None of those accounts listed were banned for vandalism. This is nothing but fishing on the part of ShuckyDucky. For the record, ShuckyDucky have been mass POV pushing on many articles. See ShuckyDucky's contributions for more details. ShuckyDucky (talk · contribs) is using his suspected IP address, 71.231.184.103 (talk · contribs), to evade warnings and break the 3RR. See also this checkuser request for more details. Guardian Tiger 02:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Clerk note: An active request, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ShuckyDucky, may or may not be of interest. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 04:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Declined; none of these accounts seem to be editing at the same time. Where is the WP:SOCK violation? Dmcdevit·t 08:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Clerk note: I moved this from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/70.19.145.44, as this was where it was meant to be. The IP reverting it apparently made the applicant post it somewhere else, but now it's here. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 12:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RevolverOcelotX

Mass vandalism, reverts, and POV pushing to the same pages. Not sure which one count as main account though. [15] [16]. More evidence available.--Bonafide.hustla 00:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence of policy violation here, so no rationale for a check other than a hunch. This is a retaliatory request and an abuse of the system by Bonafide.hustla. This is nothing but fishing on the part of Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs). For the record, Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs) have been mass POV pushing on many articles. Bonafide.hustla was previously known as Freestyle.king (talk · contribs) who was repeated blocked before he change his username. See Bonafide.hustla's contributions for more details. --RevolverOcelotX 05:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
hah! very funny. --Jiang 05:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't distort info. on this page. The request is meant to be confidential. The more I look into this, the more I think the two users are closely related. (especially commenting in a time span of 4 min on a checkuser page). Long story short, I don't know how you 2 know about this request, you're not suppose to (miraculously at the time span of 4minutes) but if you're innocent, a checkuser won't cause such a violent response.--Bonafide.hustla 05:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly fishing on the part of Bonafide.hustla (talk · contribs) and should be seen as such. --RevolverOcelotX 06:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Clerk note: Please keep comments and discussion to a minimum. It helps the checkusers to work faster. Kevin_b_er 06:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Clerk note: Another cases involving RevolverOcelotX can be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/PatCheng --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Declined These are serious accusations made on very thin evidence. Mackensen (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.