User talk:ITVStoryWeaver

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Garvita Sadhwani is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garvita Sadhwani (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Niaki101 (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is 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 sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet, what should I do to get unblocked? I really don't know who is Jha09. Do you have any evidence that I am him? I promise I don't know Jha09. Doesn't blocking as a sockpuppet require technical evidence. Was there any technical evidence or any other evidence that I am him? ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2026 (UTC) 

Decline reason:

 I have reviewed your entire editing history. Two things are unambiguously clear: you are here in order to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, and this account has picked up editing from other accounts which are blocked from editing. Either of those facts would alone be sufficient reason for maintaining the block. It seems highly likely that you are the same person who previously used other accounts, but if not, then you are a different person employed to do the editing which those accounts can't do because of blocks; it actually makes no difference, as either way this account exists for the purpose of evading the effect of blocks on other accounts. JBW (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

No, blocking does not require technical evidence (as I expect you know already).

So if you're not Jha09's sock, whose sock are you? Or put another way: what user account(s) have you used before? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

No I never knew that blocking can be done randomly without even any evidence. I am nobody's sock.ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing If you want any evidence to prove that I am not a sock I can do that. But please don't be so unfair towards me?

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not here in order to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. I am a different person and I am not employed to do the editing which the earlier sockpuppet accounts couldn't do because of blocks.ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I agree that it is completely implausible that you have no connection to the other accounts. I see no pathway forward with some sort of acknowledgement of this and agreeing to completely abandon editing about Indian actors(a formal topic ban). 331dot (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

Then explain what your connection to those other accounts is. It is absolutely glaringly obvious that there is a connection. Also, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to state who is paying you to edit. JBW (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

JBW (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@JBW How many times I have to tell you that I am not associated with any of the sock accounts and I am not paid for my edits? Why are you people trying to forcefully make me accept things with which I have no connection with? ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many times you tell me: something implausible doesn't become plausible because it's said repeatedly. The number of connections between the editing by this account and editing by several blocked accounts is far too high to be just chance. JBW (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@JBW Now I get it. You just don't want me to edit Wikipedia and for that you are falsely accusing me of something I am not or I have not done. Okay fine, do whatever you wish. Idc. ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824 @331dot I really don't why am I blocked. can you please explain why I am tagged as a sockpuppet when I am not one? ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Every sock puppet denies being one, since that is the whole point. You'll have to do better than "I'm not a sock". You were blocked based on your actions. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh so I was blocked because I was creating and editing tv shows and actors pages. But I am an ITV fanatic and I joined wikipedia only to create and edit tv shows and actors pages. Even if I get unblocked I will be creating new tv shows and actors pages. So that means I will never get unblocked?:/ ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@331dot I also have a question irrelevant to the block. Can I remove some of the messages in this talk page because, it's become quite tedious to constantly scroll down to read the messages here ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

You are permitted to remove most content from your user talk page, see WP:BLANKING. Once exception is declined unblock requests for active blocks, those must remain. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Okk thanks ITVStoryWeaver (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@ITVStoryWeaver As 331dot advised above, one way you could get unblocked would be to take a voluntary topic ban from the topic of Indian media. However, given that you have stated specifically here that the only reason you're on Wikipedia is to edit Indian media, I suppose you wouldn't agree with that. Athanelar (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@331dot Is there no way out to come out of this block? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ITVStoryWeaver (talk • contribs) 10:54, 4 May 2026 (UTC)