User talk:Tilliego

November 2009

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Seaford High School (New York), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. tedder (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jessica Liao, you will be blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Theodore Roosevelt. Marek.69 ^talk 22:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Jessica Liao (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

NW (Talk) 23:15, 29 November 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).

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

Request reason:

How come the sockmaster is not listed on the Wikipedia:List of banned users? How was I supposed to know that she was a banned user? It didn't say on the list. If it did, I would have been extra careful.

Decline reason:

They aren't listed at Wikipedia:List of banned users because they aren't banned, they are blocked. Nevertheless, your unblock reason does not address the block itself. You were blocked for sockpuppetry, confirmed by a CheckUser. If you wish to submit another request, please read the guide to appealing blocks. — The Earwig @ 02:24, 30 November 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

If you block me, then you should block User:Two-face Jackie. She is editing in the same IP address. Basically I am saying that this block is completely unjust. I did not know about this sockmaster. Please give me a second chance. I promise I won't edit the way she does. On the weight of a couple of lines you image you have identified a style. I was not even aware what sock puppet meant here. I requested that you bring this to discussion and your response is to block the account. I trust you will revert this rash and incorrect judgment asap

Decline reason:

You have been confirmed to be the same person as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jessica Liao/Archive. Please note, that since it is impossible to tell if you are one person, or two people doing the same actions from the same IP, it doesn't really matter. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy#Sockpuppets--Jayron32 05:18, 30 November 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.

Non-admin comment: This has nothing to do with Two-face Jackie, please read WP:NOTTHEM. Also since you are a confirmed sockpuppet of the aforementioned user, I don't see this account being unblocked. Momo san ^Gespräch 03:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica, the issue is not whether you act like Jessica Liao or talk like Jessica Liao; it's whether you are Jessica Liao. You, the individual human, have been permanently banned from editing Wikipedia for abusive use of sockpuppets. It's not "your accounts" that were banned; it's YOU. Please just stop. If you stop editing Wikipedia for one entire year, meaning that your fingers never hold a mouse or touch a keyboard that clicks an [edit] button or an "edit this page" tab on Wikipedia for 365 consecutive days, then you can request that ArbCom reinstate you as an editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just talk to User:Jessica Liao instead of her sock? And according to this, she only has to wait for six months not for one year. That is if she can. You can't just tell a chronic puppetmaster to stop. That's like telling a chronic smoker to quit. That's never going to happen. And she is not permanently banned. If she were she would have been on that list. The Earwig said she is blocked, not banned. Wikipedia should consider paying these puppetmasters for their therapy. They are the ones that get them sucked into this addicting website. I wouldn't be surprised if one of these puppetmaster did commit suicide.

How do you know this user? Do you know her in real life? I mean you know how she writes and her unique syntax. And you even said that she had learning disabilities. And you even know which schools she went. I highly doubt that she is a teenager. Maybe when she started Wikipedia she was. But yet you insist. According to this: [1] she's not now. Next time you should provide her correct age. If you are concerned about her, maybe you shouldn't be reporting her ban-evading socks. It's not harming Wikipedia in any way. If you don't report her ban-evading socks, who else is going to do it? No one cares but you, which is why I just don't get. Nobody keeps track of her as closely as you do. Tilliego (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a point, Jessica/Tilliego/etc, or do you want to continue referring to yourself in third person? tedder (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you don't know who exactly is behind this account. Are you just going to assume her socks are all Jessica? Tilliego (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica will do, unless you'd rather give your real name. And this isn't myspace, as you well know. Care to do anything productive? tedder (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean create a new account and edit from there? What a fantastic idea. I'm sure WhatamIdoing will be thrilled. Gee, where should I edit next? Perhaps the education-related articles are not such a good idea. Tilliego (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not yet another account. But at least an indication you plan on not being a disruptive editor. Your picture should be at WP:TE. tedder (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless I get on that list. How long does it take for someone to get on? Tilliego (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]