User talk:Mariaesc964

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Indiggo77. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not vandalising the article, read WP:NOTVAND. You are censoring the article, which violates WP:NOTCENSORED. You accusing me of sockpuppetry without evidence violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA. It's clear to anyone that you're just a shill for the band and a sockpuppet, since you behave exactly like previous accounts used by Indiggo and and their affiliates. It's ridiculous that you think that we can't tell that, almost as laughable as your attempt to block me.

And if you somehow weren't with the group, you're edit warring. Revert again and you'll be reported and blocked.

And if you really think I'm a vandal or a sockpuppet, report me at WP:ANI, the administrator's noticeboard. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Epeefleche (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:38, 29 July 2014 (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).

Mariaesc964 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet. I have started editing several Wikipedia pages. I am a person who happened to watch the AGT episodes and I am totally shocked that several users here are vandalising the Indiggo page. I am shocked that certain users are allowed to continue in their unfair and malicious attitude towards Indiggo. I have watched the AGT episodes and that is NOT how things happened. it is unfair to leave in a racist and ironic remark of Piers Morgan ( who later said that he started to enjoy Indiggo's performance, thus he contradicted himself) and not insert Sharon Osbourne's comment who is an authorised manager and music person. Who supports racism here and unfairness? The audience was the one who cheered Indiggo and shouted "Vegas" in sync. They did not boo. I am just trying to set justice, and , instead you are blocking me? Please, think fair, or I have to address the police department of wikipedai Mariaesc964 (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2014 (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.

You won't get unblocked making legal threats. 129.78.68.1 (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2014 (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).

Mariaesc964 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet and I am not Danny. It seems like you have been blocking other users unfairly too. It looks like you have set your minds to harm. Why not establish good and justice? Why not document yourslef and watch the episodes instead of reading articles who mislead you? I have started editing several Wikipedia pages and I am shocked by your rudeness in welcoming a new user. I am a person who happened to watch the AGT episodes with Indiggo and I am totally shocked that that certain users (who are probably Bristish and pro Piers Morgan) are allowed to continue in their unfair and malicious attitude towards Indiggo. I have watched the AGT episodes and that is NOT how things happened. it is unfair to leave in a racist and ironic remark of Piers Morgan ( who later said that he started to enjoy Indiggo's performance, thus he contradicted himself) and not insert Sharon Osbourne's comment who is an authorised manager and music person. Who supports racism here and unfairness? The audience was the one who cheered Indiggo and shouted "Vegas" in sync. They did not boo. I am just trying to set justice, and, instead you are blocking me?

Decline reason:

As noted, this appears to be a checkuser confirmed sock. You also appear to be continuing to create alternate accounts to evade your block. Kuru (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2014 (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.

First you call Pier Morgan names, then assume that everyone's British for not joining you? Hypocrite. Also, Wikipedia is not a platform to "right great wrongs". Plus, you've yet to address the potential legal threats, and you've yet to provide any real indication that you're not a sockpuppet of a band-affiliate (for example, by promising not to edit the article Indiggo or related articles). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing admin(s) This editor is still socking.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]