User talk:2006nishan178713

November 2021[edit]

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).

2006nishan178713 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have understood my fault and would never do it again and I have thoroughly read the Copyright Policies. I did not have a proper knowledge about the copyright policies prior violating but now after reading the policies once again, I clearly understood the importance of creative writing and the consequences of copyright violations. I totally regret my violations now. I will surely change from now, seeking more information from independent sources and writing them in my own way. I agree that I had made a huge mistake by copying copyrighted content. It's quite clear to me now how to handle copyrighted material. I would highly appreciate getting an unban which would help me continue my Wikipedia journey and I promise that I would never violate the copyright policies and always take a detailed look at all of my edits to prevent any further errors. Thanks!User:2006nishan178713 16:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Hi 2006nishan178713,

There was a kind and detailed analysis of multiple copyright issues on 29 October 2021, as pointed out by Moneytrees below. You had been explicitly informed that "you should not edit any more until you have taken the time to read and understand our copyright policy", with a link to the section about reusing content from others. You have been informed about the copyright FAQ page which explains that if you are in doubt about the copyright status of a work, you should assume that you can not use it on Wikipedia. Of course, both the policy and the FAQ contain a lot of boring and hard-to-understand details, but in general, the following part of Moneytree's message is important: "All text must be written in your own words." The general idea is: Do not copy content from somewhere else to Wikipedia. This should have been very clear even in case of misunderstandings about specific details of the copyright policy. You have been asked not to copy text from other websites in the future, and you have provided a kind and commendable response in Special:Diff/1052613780 assuring your understanding. About 10 days later, you have created Natural resources of Bhutan, full of copied paragraphs. It is hard to interpret this as a genuine misunderstanding; doing this after being informed about copyright issues makes an impression of having plagiarized others' content on purpose. In any case, the previous assurance sadly had no actual meaning.

With this in mind, there are two possible paths to being unblocked:

If you have knowingly added a copyright violation to Wikipedia, any future unblock request has to explicitly acknowledge this act of intentional plagiarism, and needs to contain a credible reason why after such a breach of trust, you can be trusted again.
If the copyright violation is a result of a genuine misunderstanding, any future unblock request must clearly and credibly explain what led to this misunderstanding, and why after such a severe failure to understand a basic requirement, you can be trusted to follow similar requirements in the future.

Each option is currently almost impossible to take. Time is an important factor: There is no time limit for creating an unblock request, and we assume that people can learn and change over time. You may need to wait multiple months, or possibly even a few years, until you can credibly say that you have changed and would like to request a second chance. Please don't rush this; you're currently probably not ready for creating the next unblock request.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2021 (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).

2006nishan178713 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I deeply regret my actions now. I am requesting for a single chance to correct myself. I acknowledge that the paragraphs were intentionally copied from the website as they were accurate, unknowing of the facts of the strict copyright policies of Wikipedia. I currently have understood the copyright policies. This kind of breach of trust will never be done again as I have clearly realised my mistakes. Please give me another chance and if I do any mistakes regarding copyright you can permanently block me. A single chance would be highly appreciated User:2006nishan178713 05:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural close for this request because there's another active unblock request further down the page. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2021 (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.

I have blocked you as the result of the above section; the article was mostly unedited sections of https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-are-the-natural-resources-of-bhutan.html. I previously warned you about 8 different copyright violations and said "Further copyright issues will result in you being blocked from editing". If you want to be unblocked, you will have to demonstrate a better understanding of copyright and an understanding not to copy from sources. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 16:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry. I underestimated copyright violations. I promise I would never do it again. I have now gone through WP:COPYRIGHT and have understood it. I realized my problem by reading WP:COPYOTHERS.

Please give another chance to correct myself.

Thanks. User:2006nishan178713 16:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this appeal might end up being declined. It would probably help you if you were a little more specific with what you would do different, and how you would specifically avoid instances where you copied in something word for word. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 17:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If he wants another chance, give him that chance. WP:ROPE? Declining unblocks isn't helpful. Maybe this thing will solve everything for him. Earwig's Copyvio Detector. It surely did for me.:)--Filmomusico (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is particularly troubling, even more so than the copyright violations themselves, was that 2006nishan178713 appeared to notice that a bot had flagged their article for potential copyvio, logged into the copyright patrolling interface, and marked their own article as "no action needed", which seems like a clear attempt to evade scrutiny. I agree with ToBeFree's advice. DanCherek (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DanCherek: Can you provide prove of that? I don't know how it works on deleted articles.--Filmomusico (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time doing this kind of mistake. I had intentionally reviewed my article which I am really sorry for. Please give me a single chance to correct myself, I promise I would never do it again. And if I do, administrators are free to block me permanently. Please!

Good Day! User:2006nishan178713 18:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, stuff happens. We all need to assume good faith of the editor and give him rope.--Filmomusico (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, the user did have multiple second chances already. The initial warning about multiple copyright violations by Moneytrees was a second chance offer. Five days later, Nanda Devi Plutonium Mission was created with copied content. I have noticed and highlighted this issue using "mark" HTML tags (usually a yellow background) at "Nanda Devi Plutonium Mission" after a request for feedback. The issue was addressed by 2006nishan178713 on the same day. Five further days later, Natural resources of Bhutan was copy-pasted together from Britannica and World Atlas. If it was an intentional attempt of deception, the trust is currently too broken for an unblock. If it was an accident, the competence is currently too low for an unblock. This is not "stuff happens", this is "some people should currently not edit Wikipedia". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: If he is blocked indefinitely how will he prove that his edit habbits have changed in say a month or so?--Filmomusico (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filmomusico, As described in the decline explanation, we assume that people can learn and change over time. 2006nishan178713 has proven that 10 days were not enough time for this process to happen, yet requests an unblock less than 60 minutes after the block notification, and less than half a day after the previous decline. An often-used, tried-and-tested approach is the "standard offer", which proposes 6 months. It does not have to be 6 months in this case here, but certainly more than a day or two. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Well ok, lets say he will issue an unblock request in 2 day time, will you assume good faith? I personally believe that an oversight will be required for any future edits by this editor. :)--Filmomusico (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The unblock request is still active. Please unblock me. I would never do it again, as stated earlier User:2006nishan178713 18:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Believe in me, I will never do this kind of things again.

I would be happy to get an oversight by someone who could monitor my edits User:2006nishan178713 11:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am leaving Wikipedia as of now. User:2006nishan178713 05:24, 14 November 2021 (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).

2006nishan178713 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I deeply regret my actions now. I am requesting for a single chance to correct myself. I acknowledge that the paragraphs were intentionally copied from the website as they were accurate, unknowing of the facts of the strict copyright policies of Wikipedia. I currently have understood the copyright policies. This kind of breach of trust will never be done again as I have clearly realised my mistakes. Please give me another chance and if I do any mistakes regarding copyright you can permanently block me. A single chance would be highly appreciated User:2006nishan178713 05:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Too many failed second chances for this block to be lifted at present. Apply again in a few months. In the interim if you'd like to demonstrate your understanding of Wikipedia's copyright policies, you might consider creating a non-copied article in your sandbox as an indciation of what kind of editing you'd do if the block was lifted. Note this is not a formal requirement for an unblock but might help in demonstrating good faith. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2021 (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've had your "single chance" multiple times, as described above. I'm starting to repeat myself. While you're waiting, please inform yourself about the difference between a block and a ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request[edit]

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).

2006nishan178713 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi administrators! I was blocked from editing English Wikipedia on November 10, 2021 on the grounds of copyright violations. Since the day of my block, I have learnt many things. I have gone through the Copyright policies of Wikipedia thoroughly. As mentioned in my previous unblock request, I did not have a proper knowledge about the copyright policies prior violating. I agree that I had been warned. I had intentionally copied the content from that website as that seemed accurate. After getting blocked, I started contributing in English Wikinews and English Wikivoyage. When my first article got published in Wikinews, a reviewer (@LivelyRatification) told me about Earwig's Copyvio Detector. I had no idea about the copyvio detector before. After using the copyvio detector, I had published 3 articles in Wikinews without any copyright issues. If I had known about the copyvio detector, I would have removed the copyrighted materials. I had no idea about the strict copyright policies on Wikipedia. After contributing in Wikivoyage and Wikinews, I have a clear-cut knowledge of all Wikimedia policies. Demonstrating good faith, I have created an article about the Copyright office of India in my sandbox (requested article in Wikiproject India). I know that copyright violations are a serious breach of trust but I promise this will never be done by me again. Citing the above reasons, I am requesting a last chance. I would highly appreciate getting an unblock from your side.

Decline reason:

I find this unblock request astonishing. In order to show that you understand copyright and won't infringe copyright, you have posted a page about copyright in which you have copied a substantial amount of text from other web pages. Nor was that some kind of slip or accident: you have explicitly said "the paragraphs were intentionally copied from the website". Furthermore, you say that you would not have posted copyright-infringing text had you known about the copyvio detector, but that makes no sense, as you must know that you copied the text: the copyvio detector may be helpful to someone else in checking whether you have copied material, but you can scarcely really think that a tool for detecting copying will help you to know whether you have copied text. These and other aspects of what you have written here make it abundantly clear that you really don't understand what copyright is. I strongly recommend taking the advice you have already been given to wait until you have had a good deal more chance to learn before making another unblock request. JBW (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2021 (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.

2006nishan178713 08:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2006nishan178713, the current revision of your sandbox, section "Function and duties", contains a complex paragraph describing what copyright is, and what the Copyright Office does. Did you write this text in your own words, or did you copy it? If you have copied it, why isn't it marked as a quote? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would not essentially call it a quote. It contains my words and some words from the copyright act. 2006nishan178713 03:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As it is in the sandbox, I have underlined the lines which have been directly taken from the Copyright Act.2006nishan178713 03:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed some issues in the sandbox. 2006nishan178713 05:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's too closely paraphrased to https://copyright.gov.in/frmfaq.aspx for my personal liking; I'll let someone else review. I had written something about "multiple months, or possibly even a few years" and stand by this recommendation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

when you said I had no idea about the copyvio detector before. After using the copyvio detector, I had published 3 articles in Wikinews without any copyright issues. If I had known about the copyvio detector, I would have removed the copyrighted materials., gave me strong doubt if you truly understand what copyright is. Can you tell me if Robert M. Huffstutler has any copyright issues? —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article Robert M. Huffstutler is a highly suspected copyvio article with a similarity of 82.9% with https://fas.org/irp/agency/nga/leaders.pdf 2006nishan178713 18:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying, I do clearly know about copyright. "I had no idea about the copyvio detector before. After using the copyvio detector, I had published 3 articles in Wikinews without any copyright issues. If I had known about the copyvio detector, I would have removed the copyrighted materials." is an instance from a point of time in the past. 2006nishan178713 18:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
that confuses me. Why would you need earwig tool to see if something is copyrighted when you know on which site it is already available? Also: whats public domain? Could you explain it from the perspective of wikipedia? —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Public domain is actually work that is not copyrighted and is free to use. Most content from the governments like images and text are of public domain. 2006nishan178713 19:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are some examples of public domain images-

Answering your first question, I had mentioned earlier that I didn't know about the policies clearly but now I do know it well. 2006nishan178713 19:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also I had mentioned in my previous unblock request that the paragraphs were intentionally copied from the website. 2006nishan178713 14:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

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).

2006nishan178713 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi Admins, I was blocked from editing English Wikipedia on November 10, 2021 on the grounds of copyright violations. My mistakes- * I violated the copyright policy of Wikipedia numerous times from early September 2021 to early November 2021 after which I was blocked by Moneytrees. * I had received several warnings (Special:Diff/1052613780, Special:Diff/1052613780) to edit without violating copyrights which I had clearly ignored despite responding positively to them. (Special:Diff/1052613780) * Before getting blocked, I had never read the copyright guidelines despite being suggested to read it several times. * I had intentionally plagiarised sources by just copying and pasting on several occasions. It has been more than 5 months since I was blocked. I have gone through the copyright policies. I have a clear-cut knowledge of the copyright policies. I acknowledge that I should not have copied the content in any manner. I never had an intention to disrupt Wikipedia in any way. In this 5 month period- *I started contributing to English Wikinews from 19 November, 2021 *As of 22 April, 2022, I have 23 peer reviewed articles on the site with three more pending reviews. *I also started actively contributing to English Wikivoyage from 19 November, 2021 (Yep! the same day) *I have gained a lot of trust in English Wikivoyage with constructive and appreciable edits. *This trust made me get the autopatrolled rights in English Wikivoyage on 18 January, 2022 *I have never violated any copyright policies in Wikinews or Wikivoyage. * All of these have helped me garner a lot of knowledge about Wikimedia’s copyright policies. * To verify the above claims, you can contact any of the active administrators of en.wikinews and en.wikivoyage. I humbly apologise for all the violations that I had done previously. I assure you that I won’t violate any copyright policies in the future as I have a good understanding of it now. I promise to write everything in my own words. I have always contributed to Wikimedia projects with good faith and civility. Once again, I apologise for my mistakes and wrongdoings. This kind of breach of trust will never be done again. I kindly request you to unblock me providing me with a last chance to correct myself. Thanking You, Regards 2006nishan178713^t@lk 08:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, sorry. I see no path forward for you. Here, you say "Before getting blocked, I had never read the copyright guidelines despite being suggested to read it several times". But this is in direct contradiction to this edit from well before you were blocked, where you say, "Thanks for letting me know about the flaws. I have understood the Copyright policy". Reading your talk page, I'm afraid I simply can't trust what you say. You've repeatedly been given chances here and you've repeatedly blown them. Your actions placed the entire project in jeopardy and I therefore decline your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2022 (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.

:([edit]

@Yamla, What shall I do then? I have really changed a lot and I can prove it, if I get a last chance. 2006nishan178713^t@lk 13:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to request another unblock; another admin would review it. I don't believe there's anything you can say that would cause me to support your unblock. --Yamla (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gonna do that anymore. I have already appealed an unblock for 5 times and I am not that desperate (sorry if I sound rude, but I am not at all rude or angry). Have a nice day! Cheers!

Bye 👋 2006nishan178713^t@lk 13:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]