User talk:ILOVESATAN666

Welcome![edit]

Hello, ILOVESATAN666, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Shirt58 (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A slice of cake for you![edit]

It is customary to hand out chocolate chip cookies to greet new contributors but, given the circumstances, I thought one would enjoy this nice slice of Devil's food cake instead. If you need assistance, the Teahouse linked above is a great place to seek it; also a few items on my user page, and if not covered there you can hit me up on my talk page and I'll do my best help or point in direction of those which can. Welcome to Wikipedia... -- dsprc ^[talk] 09:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you![edit]

A complimentary slice of Devil's Food Cupcakes to cheer you up from the recent username issue. Vincent60030 (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dsprc, Vincent60030 - LOL. These two fist bumps of Wikilove made me laugh. ILOVESATAN666, I agree with both of them; I welcome you to Wikipedia, and I give you my promise in advance to treat you exactly the same as I do with everyone else. And if you choose to add content to your user space, don't worry. I can give you the CSS code to turn your user page link back to red in your signature ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHA XD @Oshwah:. Btw, what is CSS though?

Vincent60030 - Cascading Style Sheets. It's the name of the code you insert in order to change how text and content is formatted on the web. See this thread on my talk page - It has examples of what I'm talking about. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Oic, thanks for letting me know. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPI[edit]

Hey, just giving you a head's up that there has been some question as to whether or not you're the same person as Barfbag666 or HAILXSATANX666. This suspicion looks to have been the reason you were blocked. Now what I've done is open up an investigation here. During this investigation there will be people looking to see if you're the same person, which they'll determine by looking at the IP addresses and other information that only they can see. (I don't have those privileges, so I don't know exactly what they're looking at.) The findings will greatly impact the ANI thread and the block status of all involved. I'm aware that you're blocked, but I did want to let you know that there are steps being taken with this. If you are a different person, then I do deeply apologize for all of this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was never any original "abuse" to justify the block(s); that's the point. The original user Barfbag666 was not blocked for vandalism it was the username similar to HAILXSATAN666; a claim of a disruptive username. Barfbag666 could have changed their username to HAILXSATANX666 and continued writing. Had Barfbag666 changed their name, it would be agreeing and bowing to the viewpoint of the blocking administrators which was obviously biased and limiting said ability to write under a religious oriented username. That's the point, it's not NPOV. So logically even if they were the same user it's irrelevant and blocking any of these is just blocking Satanist friendly users further driving the NPOV and bias and perpetuating beliefs of those that just don't want to see said religious words; harassment. ILOVESATAN666 (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further once again, there's productive edits such as Left Hand Path workgroup being reverted gagging said voice and ability to support the ANI.ILOVESATAN666 (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To continue. I do appreciate your defense but the premise of "is it the same person" is really not the right path to defend this creating a Straw_man fork. That's going on a path that isn't going to help. None of those accounts did anything intrinsically wrong now the focus is on "is it the same person" taking away from the contributions. There is an active effort in followers of the Satanic Temple to improve wikipedia on Satanism. So intrinsically some of those people are likely to know each other (some may even live with each other and be roommates having the same IP address). Some of which may noticed their leaders "names" and "usernames" were available and wanted to ensure those people could post under a username that contained the best description of their name. This isn't a blatant "abuse" of wikipedia's policies but rather building on the Wikipedia Satanism project. It'd be nice if i wasn't blocked in the actual ANI post so i could simply state the same with a "good faith" myself (or the other accounts) would refrain from edits elsewhere (or wherever agreed upon) until this issue is resolved. Again, the original block on Barfbag666 could have been protest by having a friend create HAILXSATANX666, Barfbag666 could have simply changed their username to HAILXSATANX666 however would be bowing to the perceived abuse by the blocking admins; who blocked on a username and not vandalism (soft block). So what is being contested here? There's obviously not malicious intent here by any of the users in question. I find it rather odd this username is even blocked from posting against it's own ANI post to say this exact thing. There's a Slippery_slope forming and the "who is what user" is being distracted from the original complaint and ANI. If all of those usernames were unblocked, I'm sure they would all be providing quality content or even perhaps through discussion of friends be distributed to contributors to the Wikiproject Satanism. The issue at hand is the blocking practice of the original and subsequent names. Why was HAILXSATANX666 blocked? Would it of been blocked if Barfbag666 simply changed it's name to it? Did HAILXSATANX666 make vandalism posts? No, it was blocked again for a username violation. Not "this is the same person" which is irreverent and a Straw_man argument distracting from the original complaint. Nobody seems to be noting the the second block was performed and reviewed against TOS. The same admin can't review their block; bias.ILOVESATAN666 (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of this argument - If the original block was only for a questionable username block and people agree is an acceptable username (although somewhat controversial), anything after that long as it wasn't malicious doesn't really matter and all accounts should be unblocked. Who the other accounts are really don't matter as they were obviously not being used for vandalisim. Fine detail after that about who is who simply isn't relevant and a distraction. There's an obvious valid Wikipedia project Wikiproject: Satanism being created that ironically Barfbag666 created in good faith and the other accounts are attempting to promote.ILOVESATAN666 (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the validity of account usernames isn't being examined, sock-puppetry is and Wikipedia takes accusations of socking very seriously. So while it might not matter to you whether or not these accounts are one individual or several, Wikipedia cares a lot (see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry). There are few authorities that are the final word on Wikipedia but the decisions of Checkusers, who check to see if socking is occurring, can only be appealed to or lifted by another Checkuser. No administrator can lift a Checkuser block so the outcome of this WP:SPI is important. They can also see whether these accounts were used sequentially (the result of a change in username) or simultaneously, which is how socking is defined.

There is a possibility in socking cases that the socks can be blocked and the editor is limited to one account but that would have to be discussed after the investigation is completed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see... I see... Again there wasn't vandalism here and it seems the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and TOS is more being used to justify retroactively blocking the account than examining the logic behind the original block. I do appreciate the discussion as it was rather lengthy but result seem to be a Witch-hunt. If that's the case is Barfbag666 unblocked yet? Probably not and logically shouldn't still be if Barfbag666 wasn't blocked, would any of this of happened? New users were created due to reaching out in various forums by people who obviously know each other one way or another. In the hypothetical case Barfbag666 is HAILXSATANX666 and so on, what is the damage? This would be like Barfbag666 being forced to write something like this citation bowing to the original blocks that had religious reference.^[1]. "No, this is personally offensive to my beliefs. I will not do it." - Patrick Stewart. Would Wikipedia force A satanist to change their username "temporarily" or "just once" to something they didn't want until someone "blesses" off their name? That's offensive and i'm pretty sure a lot of people wouldn't support forcing someone to do either (change the username or do what Patrick Steward discusses in that article). The original concern was blocking the username(s). Does one of these "Checkusers" want to have me talk have someone provide proof they're using/controlling each account independently? Could those accounts (obviously they know eacho ther and in some cases could even live in the same household (IP would be the same). So what's the point of the end result or goal if they're under similar IP's; nothing but gagging those accounts productive posts to causes that are often targeted by special interest groups thus digging this argument out of a hole. For example a "husband and wife Christian, and kids" might live to together and support each others unlock cause and would logically have the same IP. That's not against TOS right? So... ultimately the logic here must be on intent; to allow any of those usernames and monitor them for malicious activity. The later two especially are extremely good and limited Wikinames and blocking them (there's only so many "similar"" combinations of those common Satanic phrases. Or perhaps keep them blocked until someone steps up and claims each one in said manner. Doing some kind of permanent block on those names would be like a case where a chiristian came in and took great Satanic usernames and did malicious acts to purposely get them blocked preventing their future use. Again, these people obviously know each other or working productively on the overall Wikiproject: Satanism. This is being discussed in various forums.

ILOVESATAN666 (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sock case here:

These accounts were created in sequence after the previous account was blocked due to username violations. Even if their creators are the same person (have the editors even denied this?), that person is following policy (other than poor choice in names). Ie, they are creating a new account with a different name for consideration following a username block. Username blocks not only allow but encourage the creation of a new account with a more suitable name. Now, if you want to ding the user for trolling or disruptive editing for continuing to create accounts with unacceptable names, that's a different matter entirely - and one worth pursing. Rklawton (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does wikipedia treat personal safety with regards to usernames/accounts and edits? For example if someone writes significantly about Satanism it's known that there's religious extremists that have targeted people and written death threats. For example Lucien Greaves and parties receive death threats all the time (noted on wikipedia). So, it would be logical that one would also want to perhaps write more controversial and likely additions that could create a targeted personal attack against them on different accounts/pen names. Placing yourself with extremely identifying information and writing on these topics (similar to forcing facebook users to use their "real" names) could lead to stalking. That seems to warrant a certain level of "socking" for personal safety. Thank you for supporting all of those names were acceptable. Personally i don't see ANY of the posts those three users posted trolling or disruptive from a NPOV stance. However, people with a certain POV are likely to argue otherwise. Satanism, Christians, and other religious users are going to have to just share the same space on wikipedia. Iroincally Satanists have a rather strong history of supporting other religions and their freedoms. ^[2]ILOVESATAN666 (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't agreed that all the usernames were acceptable. BarfBag666 is definitely not acceptable, and the satan related names were not acceptable because you were using these accounts to promote satanism, and the combination is a blockable offense per WP:Username. Rklawton (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The subject you address above, personal security, is solved by creating and using a single, anonymous account and not by creating and using multiple accounts. Rklawton (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't BarfBag666 acceptable again as a username again? This wasn't properly justified nor unblock responded to properly blocking admin if you look at that usertalk page; perhaps that user just gave up not wanting to waste time with an ignorant admin. So, in the hypothetical case Barfbag666 is User:HAILXSATANX666, and Barfbag666 simply wanted to abandon the account rather than agree with a POV that they didn't share (thus bowing to your opinion), then why was User:HAILXSATANX666 blocked? Further, why this account ILOVESATAN666 blocked with primarily the only post contesting the blocks of the other accounts and a few minor updates to wikiprojects? If the user abandoned the original account due to resisting said ignorant block, effectively that was the same as a username change. If you notice, other than the wikiproject (i think) there wasn't overlap between any of the postings. Although both accounts were writing articles related to satanism, that's not some kind of excessive promotion. I'm sure there's people that write quite a bit and only focus on one religion. This is kind of looking like an aggressive block on a particular user name and productive content editing bias than an actual productive block other than passive (more like actively aggressively) blocking a users from posting and wasting time to "beg" their accounts getting unblocked. If you haven't learned anything about Satanism yet, that's kind of one of the worst thing you can do to a Satanist; assert dominance. What's the impact of unblocking these accounts? They'll just continue providing valuable input to Wikipedia. Having similar IP's doesn't equate to even being the same user as noted in a discussion higher up. What if these three users are roommates that all have interest in Satanism and when one gets blocked, another is asked to make an account? Why on earth does this need to be proved or justified? It's a witch hunt. Nobody seems to be rebutting my claim if a POV of an admin puts a block on a username and the user doesn't agree and unwilling to change the username it's kind of oppressive and degrading to have the user forcibly unblock their account thus giving victory to the blocking admin. That's like saying the only way a Christian can leave a building is by signing their soul to Satan; they might just not do it no matter the consequence. What must occur to get each user accounts unblocked?ILOVESATAN666 (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way comparing "SATAN" with "UBER" is quite offensive in (talk)ILOVESATAN666 (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW... per your last comment in talk your are grasping at straws.. You'll find many Satanic writers have a very specific style that is not exactly pleasant to many based on their prejudices. Said writers don't have to modify their style, usernames, or writing to appeal to anyone long as it's not blatently targeted (i doubt Barfbag666 was actually going to use "SATANLOVESGAYMEN". If i were Barfbag666, I could see why said user would simply find a better username but not bow down to the petty admin request. Effectively you and other admins may have forced that user to do so triggering a death by cop violation of wikipedia's using multiple accounts to promote blah blah blah blah. Really? look at how many pots were created on the topic with those accounts? Was that "promotion"? So if you don't like a satanist, block their username and then find what username they changed to right? That's a clever pathway to censoring satanist views as most satanists won't blow to this sort of domination.ILOVESATAN666 (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Wikipedia is not a battleground and if you continue to use your talk page to cast aspersions on the motivations of other editors or administrators I will remove your ability to post on it.

You've been advised, several times, that there is an ongoing Sockpuppet Investigation, whether or not you think this is reasonable, and no one will unblock your account until the investigation closes. During this period of time, I advise some patience and an end to this ranting. You will not persuade other editors of the "rightness" of your position if you continue to accuse other editors of bias and challenge well-founded Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This endless criticism does not make people sympathetic to your situation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.eonline.com/news/663888/patrick-stewart-clarifies-remarks-about-supporting-bakery-s-refusal-to-bake-support-gay-marriage-cake

[2] ttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/19/satanic-temple-offers-helping-hand-muslims-amid-su/

[1]

[2]