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

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked several years ago for sockpuppetry. However, this was caused by lack of knowledge about Wikipedia policy. Subsequently I made an unblock request and it was turned down with the offer that if I do not behave disruptively and violate policy for a year I will be unblocked. I have done just that and read up on Wiki policy. If it is possible could I be given an unblock now under Wikipedia's own policy of good faith?

Accept reason:

OK, I understand what you said, and I see no reason not to give you another chance. Normally I would wait for the blocking administrator to have a chance to comment, but he or she has been doing very little editing recently, having made only one edit in the last 19 days, so there could be a long wait, and also it is highly likely that after a few months short of two years he or she may not have much opinion on it anyway, so I have decided to go ahead and unblock your account. If Risker disagrees, I hope he or she will accept my apologies and let me know the reason for disagreeing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am normally well disposed towards unblock requests from editors who come back after several years and say that they will not do the same things again, and I am certainly willing to consider unblocking you. However, there are a couple of things that give me pause. Firstly, you say that sockpuppetry was "caused by lack of knowledge about Wikipedia policy", but nobody needs to know about a policy in order to realise that pretending to be several people in order to give a misleading impression of support for a point of view is dishonest. Secondly, years ago, when requesting to be unblocked, you said (more than once) that you would not continue to use sockpuppets, but you did. Can yo comment on those two facts? Also, maybe Risker, the blocking administrator, would like to comment, even though the block was a long time ago, so Risker may well have no memory of it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: When I made my Wiki account, I found it a great website. The other three accounts were made for family members. The immature act that I committed due to lack of policy knowledge was to ask them to support a discussion. It is obviously biased and I was unaware that Wikipedia doesn't support this kind of behaviour. I have evidently taken a long break and made myself aware enough to not repeat this behaviour. If Risker wants to ask any more questions I will surely answer them. I just think I shouldn't be indefinitely blocked and never ever be given a chance again.--Shane Cyrus (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The unblock request for this account was misleading; they did not specify that the "previous account" was MaranoFan. User:MaranoFan is indef blocked, and has been submitting frequent unblock requests to UTRS (including yesterday!) that are routinely rejected. The behavior MaranoFan was blocked for was serious and long-term. I've reblocked this account. Until and unless MaranoFan is specifically unblocked, you are not welcome here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And still creating sock accounts...--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Justin Bieber, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Justin Bieber and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Justin Bieber during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia:WikiProject Miley Cyrus/Userbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:IHeartRadio Music Awards.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Twitter page of Justin Bieber. Since you had some involvement with the Twitter page of Justin Bieber redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Goveganplease (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Miley Cyrus - See You Again.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Miley Cyrus - See You Again.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Miley Cyrus - See You Again.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]