User talk:LilyLilac88

As a matter of principle I would like to point out that I don't have to give any explanation, it's you who has to tell me what the purpose and illegitimate result of this alleged sockpuppet would be, but let's ignore it. For privacy, I will give you two scenarios. A highly anticipated TV series is broadcast, people search for information about it on Wikipedia and notice that the article is very biased. A couple of them who are familiar with Wikipedia editing, try to solve the problem in their own way. Second scenario. A highly anticipated TV series is broadcast, people search for information about it on Wikipedia and notice that the article is very biased. "Hey, look at this stuff? I don't think this is right" says "A" to "B". "B" doesn't pay attention, "A" writes a useless message in the talk box and keep talking about it. "B" finally catches up, reads the article, sees the problem, goes for the fix. "A" complains that it's not polite."B" gives in and writes something on the talk box too. The author it's very pissed off and put this stupid show on. No one bothers to read the article in question or provide an explanation as to what exactly was done that was illegitimate. The article is modified anyway by someone else, but maintaining the poor original form so as not to offend the author's sensitivity. Conclusion, now we have a bad Wikipedia article, two blocked accounts, "A" who is complaining and "B" who is cursing the day she returned to Wikipedia

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LilyLilac88. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Izno (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is very convenient, the block prevents you from responding to the accusations and no explanation is given about it, congratulations, this is a very transparent way of acting @Izno! LilyLilac88 (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis was my account blocked? I edited on Wikipedia for years, I had no blocks and the edited article had no blocks, so why the hell would I need a sockpuppet? LilyLilac88 (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block

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).

LilyLilac88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am editing on Wikipedia since 2015, I’m not aware that the Wikipedia regulations prohibit working in the same house, office, library you shared with partners, roommates or colleagues. The Wikipedia rules don't even prohibit having multiple accounts, for that matter, unless they are used for illegitimate reasons. My account had no blocks or restrictions, the page I edited had no blocks or restrictions, so exactly where would the illegitimate motivations be in editing an editable article and why would I need a sockpuppet to do what I could already do? LilyLilac88 (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on checkuser evidence, the connection between the accounts is evident; it is exceedingly Likely that the accounts are the same individual or working together so closely as to be indistinguishable technically. Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:54, 22 February 2024 (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.

It isn't prohibited to edit in the same location as others. Your account had not edited in seven years until yesterday, and that was shortly after another account that has not been used since 2020 also began to edit the same subject. Can you explain what seems like a big coincidence? 331dot (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block

@331dot

As a matter of principle I would like to point out that I don't have to give any explanation, it's you who has to tell me what the purpose and illegitimate result of this alleged sockpuppet would be, but let's ignore it. For privacy, I will give you two scenarios. A highly anticipated TV series is broadcast, people search for information about it on Wikipedia and notice that the article is very biased. A couple of them who are familiar with Wikipedia editing, try to solve the problem in their own way. Second scenario. A highly anticipated TV series is broadcast, people search for information about it on Wikipedia and notice that the article is very biased. "Hey, look at this stuff? I don't think this is right" says "A" to "B". "B" doesn't pay attention, "A" writes a useless message in the talk box and keep talking about it. "B" finally catches up, reads the article, sees the problem, goes for the fix. "A" complains that it's not polite."B" gives in and writes something on the talk box too. The author it's very pissed off and put this stupid show on. No one bothers to read the article in question or provide an explanation as to what exactly was done that was illegitimate. The article is modified anyway by someone else, but maintaining the poor original form so as not to offend the author's sensitivity. Conclusion, now we have a bad Wikipedia article, two blocked accounts, "A" who is complaining and "B" who is cursing the day she returned to Wikipedia.

LilyLilac88 (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a checkuser, but checkuser evidence is private and can only be discussed in general terms, as has been done already. You may make an unblock request for another checkuser to review. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're telling me that not only has no administrator so far been able to explain what this alleged illegitimate action is that I committed in editing an editable article, but that I can't even defend myself from the accusation? Wow. This kind of bullshit is exactly why I gave up on Wikipedia LilyLilac88 (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one is preventing you from defending yourself, but we won't give people information to better evade detection- even if that's not you. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If technical data has led to the wrong conclusion, please explain how. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this is truly unbelievable. What the "data" says is completely irrelevant because as has already been established: 1) Wikipedia (obviously) cannot prohibit two people from living, working and editing in the same place and using the same devices

2) Wikipedia does not prohibit a person from having two accounts, unless they are used for illicit purposes. I want to know what my illicit purposes were, what rule did I broke, what the basis for this shitshow is @Izno @Ponyo LilyLilac88 (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So which is it? Instead of dancing around the issue, confront it and tell your explanation, don't just tell us the possibilities.

I think you are already aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LilyLilac88. That's the reason for the block. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have to share private details to justify myself for an action that isn't against the rules! You are the ones who have to tell me how I would have broken the rules: are you able to tell me? I edited an article that was perfectly editable. What.are.the.illicit.purposes.mentioned.by.Wikipedia. I will wait LilyLilac88 (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operating two accounts to create the illusion of two different editors is against policy, as is meat puppetry. No one has asked you for "private details". 331dot (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly "the illusion of two editors" should be, the title of a sci-fi novel? The page was edited by several people anyway, are they all puppets? Is it a puppet conspiracy?

You use sockpuppets to get around a restriction, manipulate a vote, or influence a discussion. Since I didn't have any restrictions and neither did the article, since there was no vote or even a discussion going on, why the hell would I need a second account for? There was nothing preventing me from editing that page, do you understand that it doesn't make sense? And if there was no illicit motivation behind the fact that two accounts interacted with the same article, it means that the interaction itself is irrelevant and above all that it's not against the rules, so this stupid block has no foundation!

LilyLilac88 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that somewhere buried in your comment you are saying you didn't operate two accounts; so are you saying someone else operated the other account? Then explain the similarity in usernames, similarity in subject matter, similarity in timing, and why technical data would show a strong connection between the accounts. All we want is a civil, honest explanation from you. If you don't want to provide that publicly because it's too personal, you may make a private unblock request via WP:UTRS. Otherwise, you need to make a new unblock request for a different checkuser to examine. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block

@Ponyo

And still, you failed to tell me what the illegitimate reasons would be for editing an editable article LilyLilac88 (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a real unblock request, or are you whistling Dixie? Drmies (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]