User talk:NyteMuse

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for WP:DUCK sockpuppetry–Sockpuppet of User:SillyLillyPilly, blocked for disruptive editing and promotional material. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am completely new to Wikipedia so I'm not really sure what (if anything) can be done to prove I am not User:SillyLillyPilly. I apologize if my editing was seen as disruptive; what I understood from the style guide was that self-published material couldn't be sourced, but as The Psychic Vampire Codex was published through Weiser, which is not connected to Michelle Belanger in any way outside of professionally, that seemed to me to be acceptable for citing a definition that was not the end all be all, yet still popular. If my presumption was erroneous, I again apologize and would like the opportunity to try harder. If I cannot prove definitively I am not a sockpuppet, could the block term at least be reduced or less restrictive so that I may still be around and do whatever I need to in order to conduct more good edits on a wider range and show I am not disruptive?

Decline reason:

You're defense about being a new editor does not hold water, given the content of your very first post to Wikipedia. Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:42, 12 April 2009 (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.

Opinion

Hi there. Even though I know we must try to assume good faith on Wikipedia edits by WP:AGF, it is highly unlikely that you are a new Wikipedian that just randomly landed on the promotional problem it was being dealt between editors/admins and sock puppets on the Vampire lifestyle article. After the promotional content of Michelle Belanger being continuously removed by admins, and consequentially brought back by her sock puppets, now when the socks were blocked for a period of 24h, you miraculously login on Wikipedia and make your single and only edit ever on Wikipedia bringing back her promotional content.

Here is your own edit message for the content you brought back:
No proof SillyLillyPilly is sockpuppet account for Michelle Belanger, thus no reason to delete edits.

If you are actually new on Wikipedia, not a sock puppet and not called in here by any of the blocked sock puppets with the single goal of continuing the disruptive and promotional edits, how come do you justify your edits by stating that there is no proof that SillyLillyPilly is a sock puppet account for Michelle Belanger? If you are new, you would not know that...
I believe this case of (self?) promotion and sock puppetry already went too far. And even in the unlikely case that you are not SillyLillyPilly/Michelle Belanger, it looks clear that you only came here under their persuasion. MarkChase (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MarkChase your opinion is unneeded and and warranted. Please assume good faith and be aware that the posting activity of yourself and User:GustavusPrimus could potentially fall under the same sort of scrutiny.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

This explanation is satisfactory and checks out, and thus I am unblocking you. I would urge you and other editors from your online community to divulge that on your user page, to prevent any further misunderstanding. Tag-team editing is also frowned upon, so I would urge your site not to post links to Wikipedia with the sole intent of getting involved in a dispute like this. In the meantime, apologies for the inconvenience, and thank you for your understanding.

Request handled by: PeterSymonds (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

At this time, I will not be taking any action on this request. However, I note that your excessive verbosity is quite similar to that of User:SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy. —Travis ^talk 21:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NyteMuse is not my sock puppet or any other sort of puppet or duck. I've seen NyteMuse in a number of locations related to the OVC – online vampire community . She has her own live journal account, myspace, twitter, etc. etc. etc. Heck, she has a fricken LibraryThing. No where, however can I find any Urban dead references, which where the name SillyLillyPilly – and the use of I's instead of l's in the name – stem from.

She is an administer for a number of forum boards, such as the forums at psychicvampire.org and khetete.org. If she were going to come here as a sock puppet, I highly doubt she would do so under such a throughly and long term established name. I suspect she used her name in the hopes that it would lend her even more credibility to her edits. I happen to know of her because the vampire community is quite incestuous. She likely came to this wiki and that because of ongoing discussions about the wiki entry on the Voices of the Vampire Community message board, which is a private message board made up of vampire community leadership.

You can find records of her participation in the VVC Meeting Transcripts. Merticus from the Atlanta Vampire Assoc action and Lono who runs the paychicvampire.org can vouch for her non-sockiness. I don't use my community name here, because, well, I'd rather not. Heck, I suspect that she even used an email address to sign up that references her own name as well.

As for our writing styles. NyteMuse is not nearly as haughty or arrogant as me. Nor does she have nearly the understanding of wiki formatting that I do. And excess verbosity on both our parts is hardly a sign of being the same person, rather is more a sign of some one whose attended college than anything else. And besides, I am far more magniloquent she is.

I'm really only interested because I noted that she had edited an entry. When I saw this act had caused her to get banned, it was completely unjustified and that I should say something. Puppetry is a serious charge, particularly for some one who comes in with a pre-established identity. The only thing NyteMuse is guilty is ignorantly stepping into a minefield rooted in the actions of myself, User:GustavusPrimus, and MarkChase without realizing it.

At the very least, it would hardly be logical for me to create a sock puppet of my own, when at the same time I was fighting against being labeled a sock puppet myself? I think it's been demonstrated through the discussions I've taken part in that once I learn about wiki policy, I quickly adopt.

If you still feel that NyteMuse and I are the same individuals, than ban this account and reopen hers, that way she can participate in wiki using an established online name.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]