User talk:Fangusu

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

• I, Fangusu, have reviewed every single policy on Wikipedia thoroughly.
• I now completely understand what copyright is.
• I now completely understand why I got so many blocks.
• Please unblock my original account so that I can have another chance to be useful on the English Wikipedia.
• I really do promise not to edit war ever again.
• I have made some useful edits on Wikimedia Commons. The Commons account I used is called Fangusu.
• I did edit as User:PriyaChandnani as well as all the other accounts in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Fangusu and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Fangusu.
• According to FisherQueen, seeking forgiveness is especially difficult for sockpuppeteers because the act of sockpuppetry is perceived as dishonest, even if the sockpuppeteer in question is not inherently malevolent. However, she did not say that sockpuppeteers are never unblocked. Rather, she said that sockpuppeteers are rarely unblocked.
• Prior to retiring from this website, Icarus3 briefly considered getting my original account unblocked because he understood that I wanted to come back and be more useful.
• Please stop questioning me. I am NOT an evil vandal. I am a genuinely good-hearted person who wants to improve and be pardoned.

Accept reason:

Welcome back! Max Semenik (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you first acknowledge whether you edited as User:PriyaChandnani and all other accounts you used? If you are unblocked, people will compare your conduct to all your prior accounts to see if any patterns re-emerge. Please also identify the Commons account you used. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It would be easier to keep track of this if you didn't remove my comments and instead just responded underneath. I'm an admin too but I need to check in with the original blocking admin as well so I need the full details and I'm not going to remember much other than my comments keep getting removed at the moment. Your work at Commons seems good so I'm just checking with User:Wknight94. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Fangusu, please answer these questions. Max Semenik (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

What questions are you referring to? Fangusu (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Fangusu has made it difficult to follow the sequence of comments here, by posting the answers to the above questions in the body of the latest unblock request, rather than putting them underneath the questions. Nevertheless, the answers are there, as you will see if you read the unblock request. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Wknight94, Ricky81682, and MaxSem: I am in favour of unblocking to give Fangusu another chance. It has been many years, and people can change a good deal in that much time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I agree with an unblock as well. I asked here but there's been no response (although there has been other editing since then). It's been almost a week and MaxSem took care of it. Welcome back Fangusu. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Captain Planet

Template:Captain Planet has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 10:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cadaver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Body (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Panties, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Panties. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions.
Please note that I have asked you to take this to the talk page of the article. You are trying to edit war already unsourced content by supplanting it with your own original research without even discussing it, and not even providing an edit summary as to where your content comes from. Follow WP:BRD. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fangusu. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 01:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Please refrain from making controversial changes that have already been discussed on the article's AfD discussion, as you did at Temporary tattoo, without first establishing consensus on the talk page (the content was not merged per the discussion). Your edits appear to have gone against established consensus and have been reverted. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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/Fangusu. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Behavior_of_Fangusu". Thank you.Vanjagenije (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Aaaand block reinstated. We gave you a chance and you blew it. Max Semenik (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I wanted you administrators to forget about my behavior from 2008 altogether. This means 100% absolution. Why didn't any of you forget? Fangusu (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Why should we? This looks totally like a continuation of your erratic behavior of old. If even being blocked for several years didn't teach you, that's a problem. Max Semenik (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Please believe me on this matter. I did make some useful edits once you people unblocked me this year. Fangusu (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The main reason I got so many blocks back in 2008 was copyright violations. The sockpuppetry issue came in MUCH later. I have taken great care to avoid any copyright problems this year. This means I did learn a few necessary things between the 7-year gap. Therefore, I would appreciate it if my ban was lifted. Fangusu (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. When a community banned user is allowed to return to the community, it is expected that they do nothing to earn the ire of the community. That includes no edit warring, no copyright violations, no sockpuppets, no policy violations of any sort. Blocks are preventative, and in this case it was to prevent your copyright violations, socking etc. The fact that you edited under an IP so soon after you were unblocked means that the block must be levied again to prevent you from further editing. Regardless of how you feel about the matter, the community has decided that you are no longer welcome here. Blackmane (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Please remove the sockpuppet tag from my user page. The IP was my only "sockpuppet" this year, and I used it while I was unblocked. How is that bad? Fangusu (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Complete forgiveness, please?

When I requested an unblock, I was expecting 100% absolution. This means that, in addition to forgiving me, I wanted you all to forget my past behavior altogether i.e. go on acting as though nothing bad happened. I wanted a fully fresh start, like a completely new user. When I edited anonymously following the unblock, it was because I had genuinely forgotten to log in. I did not bear any real malice towards anybody. Also, the only reason everyone started imposing blocks on me in 2008 was copyright violations. I have since learned to abide by international copyright laws. Therefore, how can you say that I have not learned anything at all? That statement is not 100% accurate. I am not being a smart-aleck, I am just stating the facts. Fangusu (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

But, we did forgive you. You was unblocked and given a second chance. You blew it. What do you expect? That we should forgive you again every time? By the way, you are still using the same IP although you are banned from Wikipedia, which is forbidden. How do you expect us to "forgive" you when you are constantly braking the rules? Vanjagenije (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

When I requested forgiveness, I actually wanted you all to do what is called Forgiving AND Forgetting. This means forgetting about my past misbehavior altogether. Also, the main purpose of my anonymous editing was to make useful edits. The main purpose of useful edits is to improve Wikipedia. This means that the thought AND the quality of an edit are both FAR MORE important than the person doing the edit. Fangusu (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure my previous comment in August, which is still above, summarised the expectation pretty clearly. The community can forgive, but it will not forget especially if you fall back into your old patterns. I mean, how can you expect the community to forget your old behaviours when you throw it back in to the community's face?. You don't get to set the conditions when you are unblocked. You were blocked for sockpuppetting. You even knew that "seeking forgiveness is especially difficult for sockpuppeteers because the act of sockpuppetry is perceived as dishonest, even if the sockpuppeteer in question is not inherently malevolent". So why would you go and edit as an IP? As a known sockmaster, the very last thing you should be doing is editing as an IP. Blackmane (talk) 03:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

When I say forget, I mean that nobody should care at all about the bad things I did in the past. This also means that if they crop up again, they should be treated as completely NEW. The main purpose of my anonymous editing was to make useful edits. The main purpose of useful edits is to improve Wikipedia. This means that the thought AND the quality of an edit are both FAR MORE important than the person doing the edit. Fangusu (talk) 05:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Telling other editors to "boil their head" is not useful. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

If you were just another editor who had tripped up once, then sure that could certainly be applicable. Many editors who get blocked once or twice, for edit warring as an example, usually have the past actions overlooked when different trip ups, for personal attacks as another example, occur. However, when an editor already has a history for a particular violation, chronic edit warring for example, that history becomes very relevant when repeat violations occur. In this case, your history of socking is very relevant. The fact that you socked so soon after being unblocked tells the admins that you have not learned the lessons from your past especially after acknowledging that sockmasters are customarily dealt with very harshly. Regardless of the quality of the edit, your failure to abide by the expectations of the admin who unblocked you means it is very unlikely other admins would be willing to unblock you. Your only recourse is to 1) appeal to Arbcom (as BASC has been disbanded) or 2) seek a community review. Should you choose option 1) you'll just have to email one of the arbitrators. If you choose option 2), I would be amenable to copying your request onto WP:AN and request that the community review your block. As I have been posting on your talk page, I would recuse from participating in the broader discussion and leave it to other editors to arrive at a consensus. Blackmane (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)