User talk:Devil Goddess

Hello, Devil Goddess, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Manual of Style
Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devil Goddess

This account appears to be a returning user. Is that correct? If so, are any of hte user's previous accounts still blocked? If so, that would mean this account is improperly evading a block. Please explain. You may email me if you prefer to keep this confidential. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you think that I am a returning user, and why you are not addressing this question to me directly. Devil Goddess (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am directing the question to you, here on this account talk page. Since you haven't asked to keep this confidential, here are the reasons for my suspicions: 1) You not a new user. That's obvious by your familiarity with formatting and other details of editing Wikipedia. 2) You have edited 20 articles in common with blocked user:Skoojal.[1] Skoojal was placed on an indefinite block in September.[2] Skoojal has made several requests for unblock, indicating the desire to return to editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I didn't understand that you were addressing the question to me: it wasn't entirely clear. In response to point 1) You can't know this. Anyone can read guidelines on how to edit before they start. In response to point 2) So what? These articles interest numerous people. This is a strange way to be treating an editor making clearly constructive and non-controversial edits. If you have a problem with any edit I've made, please tell me what it is and we can discuss this. Devil Goddess (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to block this account as a sock evading a legitimate block. Please get user:Skoojal unblocked before making any further edits to this project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do not know that I am a sock. You are assuming this. It is not reasonable to block someone absent proof that they are a sock (the policy states, "If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet accounts may be blocked indefinitely" - doesn't say you can block for unproven suspicions). Devil Goddess (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not offered any alternative explanation, so the conclusion that fits the facts seems warranted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply does not appear to be based upon policy. The policy is that someone found, not suspected, of being a sock puppet can be blocked. Devil Goddess (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see you either denying being the same user as Skoojal, nor offering any explanation for your behavior being so similar to his. This account meets the "duck test": "if it quacks like a duck...." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not denying being Skoojal because it is pointless and beneath my dignity. If for whatever reason you suspect me of something, I may not be able to convice you otherwise. There is nothing surprising about someone being interested in editing articles about gay subjects, nor anything wrong with them doing so. I have no idea what else you mean by my "behavior." Devil Goddess (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCK is an essay, and has no standing as policy. Again, I ask why you are treating someone making constructive edits this way? Devil Goddess (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who just randomly noticed Devil Goddess's submissions, and then looked at the history of his or her edits under the name Devil Goddess and Skoojal, I am dismayed to see what I consider harassment by Wikipedia administrators. This person is not writing anything malicious or inappropriate in any way -- the contributions appear to be solely in the interest of clarity, precision and intellectual balance. I think the administrators are using their sockpuppet policy in a heavy-handed, abusive way against this individual, and I think they should stop it and let the person continue to contribute to the site. Damion (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Damion, that's very kind of you. If you have anything more to say, however, it would be better to say it at user talk:Skoojal rather than here. Devil Goddess (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Devil Goddess (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No proof has been offered that I am a sockpuppet. WP:SOCK says that you can be blocked if you are found to be operating a sock-puppet account. It does not say unproven suspicions are a basis for blocks, but they are all that has been offered. The words, "An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet of Skoojal" have been placed on my user page, but that shows suspicion only and is inconsistent with my being found to be a sockpuppet.

Decline reason:

There is clearly credible reason to believe that you are Skoojal, and you aren't denying it or explaining the similar behavior in terms of topics / articles / edit style. If you are not Skoojal please provide us with an explanation for the apparent similarity. If you are, please just admit it and stop covering up. Honesty and clarity will help you here. Thank you. — Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Devil Goddess (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The only reasons Will Beback gave for my being Skoojal are that I know how to edit properly, and I am interested in many of the same subjects as Skoojal. The first proves nothing by itself, and WP:SOCK is clear about that. As for the second, did it occur to you that someone might be interested in the same subjects as Skoojal because they are gay? Gay people frequently edit articles about gay subjects. That's as credible a reason for the similar interests as my being the same person (and WP:SOCK supports me here too, stating, "Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start participating in Wikipedia for the same reason, particularly in controversial areas such as articles about politics, religion, or articles for deletion.") However, Beback's guess was right, I am Skoojal, I admit that. My block was nevertheless not in accord with policy, which does not indicate that you can block based on suspicion alone. I wait with interest to see how my honesty will help me.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that your rationale behind being unblocked is "I admit being a sock, but I disagree with the methods through which you deduced I'm a sock and I don't feel that they conform to Wikipedia policy, so I demand to be unblocked!" While I understand where you are going with this, I would like to direct your attention to WP:BUREAUCRACY. Wikipedia is not a convoluted legal system where your actions become expunged because you find some cryptic argument of policy that suggests your block has been unfairly handled. — Trusilver 08:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Devil Goddess (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

OK, I am a sock-puppet. But unblock me anyway, because I'm also a good editor. Remember WP:IAR

Decline reason:

If you've solved the problem that made your original block necessary, that's great news. But please request the unblock on the talk page of your original account, not this one. By the way... I'm gay, and yet, inexplicably, I've never been mistaken for another gay user's sockpuppet. I wonder if there's a flaw in your theory? — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.