{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Blueboy
96 22:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)SchoolcraftT ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was the victium of an attack, and the images were indead created by me from non-copyrighted images created on my home computer.
Decline reason:
You were told innumerable times that you were doing things wrong and that you needed to work with other editors, not against them. You have also been warned a number of times about uploading copyrighted materials. FYI: Screenshots of copyrighted images from copyrighted software are not yours to share. Anyway, since you didn't address the reasons for your block, I am declining your request. — DoRD ( ?) ( talk) 22:41, 31 January 2010 (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.
SchoolcraftT ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I understand how serious copyrights are.
Decline reason:
You will have to do better than that. Read up on all of Wikipedia's image policies and copyright laws. Understand what public domain, creative commons and such other terms mean. And then come back and an admin will assess your request. SGGH ping! 13:10, 2 February 2010 (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.
SchoolcraftT ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I understand how serious copyrights are, and I read all acoumpaning policies
Decline reason:
This is no more convincing than the above request. Sandstein 14:11, 2 February 2010 (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.
I strongly oppose unblocking at this point, given that this user has been caught socking twice this morning. One of them contends that the Shooting Range images were not copyvios--which proves he really doesn't understand copyright and makes me wonder if we're dealing with wanton disregard here. Blueboy 96 14:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
-- Todd Schoolcraft ( talk) 14:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
SchoolcraftT ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I read and understand all the poicies conerning copyricght, and I wont enfring copyrights again.
Decline reason:
I can't tell, from reading this, whether you actually do understand the copyright policies, or are simply saying that you understand them in order to be unblocked. And I'd oppose unblocking anyway, if you're using sockpuppet accounts- that's so dishonest that nothing you say can be believed. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 14:33, 2 February 2010 (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.
SchoolcraftT ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Yes, I did read and understand all the policies concering fair use. Copyrights and public Domain and understood them, and I was cincere when I said i'll never ever do any of those thing nor that I would sockpuppet again. I wote this request from the heart. I admit to everything that I was blocked for (Diesruptive Edits).
Decline reason:
Reading the discussion below, I see no indication that you either understand the issues that led to your block or that you will cease your disruptive editing if you were unblocked. TN X Man 16:50, 2 February 2010 (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.
-- Todd Schoolcraft ( talk) 15:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I storngly dissagree with what you said the articl was what it was when i created it since June Nobody had touch it until you came along. I had the right as a wikipedian to verrify all the information that was put into that article. Give ti about a month and then well talk. Beside the so called finger pointing was for a diffrent article. The indefine Block is harsh, in fact too harsh. The origgonal bock shold have been sufficiant. The Image poicy in my opinion needs to be ironed out so confusion like this would never happen again. Unimpeded is one thing, hapered is something else, and I ment every word I said in that request. -- Todd Schoolcraft ( talk) 15:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Todd, after noticing that all of the images you uploaded had no data about them, I had several other admins take a look. One of them pointed out that at least one image you uploaded was far too old for you to have created it yourself. This image was uploaded in October, and you had ample time to change the image information to reflect this. Based on this revelation and what happened yesterday, I can only conclude that you have a serious misunderstanding of copyright and fair use.
For this reason, I've extended your block indefinitely. This may seem harsh, but you have to realize that the Wikimedia Foundation can literally be sued out of existence for copyright violations, so we have no choice but to take a firm line on this issue. I would advise very strongly against requesting an unblock until you can prove that you understand how serious this is. Blueboy 96 23:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I realise how seriousde this is,but if you tell me which one or ones it it, i can fix it imedeiately. -- Todd Schoolcraft ( talk) 09:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict with block review admin) Todd, the problem is that BlueBoy doesn't think you understand how copyright works at all. Rather than the unblock request you have posted, I suggest you go and read all the stuff you can find on Wikipedia and on Commons about copyright, then come back and explain exactly when you can claim that you are the creator of an image, when an image is public domain, when you need to use a fair use rationale, and what one of those might say.-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 13:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
that was not intended for you,but for some other user.-- Todd Schoolcraft ( talk) 16:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I think I've been very generous in that I haven't disabled this talk page yet. But this is the second time I've had to restore discussion related to your request that you have tried to remove. If you are still requesting unblock, leave the related discussion in place. Once you are no longer requesting unblock, you are welcome to archive all the discussions you like. Next time, I will disable your ability to edit this talk page. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 16:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
-- Todd Schoolcraft ( talk) 16:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 16:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I never was a good speller anyway. It has become painfll for me,and l like the protection idea but lets concider a week or two on the protection.
Thank you -- Todd Schoolcraft ( talk) 16:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Please stop avoiding your block. If you want to have a chance at getting unblocked, you can do one of two things:
You need to step back and take some time off. Every time you request a new unblock without understanding the problem or edit around your block by creating a new account or using an IP address, people are less likely to unblock you. If it keeps up, you're going to have a very difficult time ever being allowed to edit again. Shell babelfish 13:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
As you all know by now, On February 1st been accused of copyright violations, edit warring exc. and was blocked for it. Since then I had talked to the copyright owner and was granted perission to use those images that were deleted, and yes its genuine unlike what most permission volunteers have said. If you want a copy of the permission, I will gladly provide a copy of the permission, as long as you provide me an e-mail address. Gnangarra has already reviewed the permission and I waiting on an e-mail from him.
As far as the edit war, it was just a simple misunderstanding of what was relevant in some articles, happens all the time. I should not have added to it, it was inexpiable behavior on my part. I am more mild-mannered than that.
I should not have socked at all, its inexplicable even for me to do that just to prove a point, make it inexcusable. It should not have been done at all.
I take full responsibility for everything that I have done wrong.
Lets put prior history where its supposed to be, in the past, and lets not cut each other's thoughts either by bringing up anything that happened in the past. I take lies and Personal attacks very seriously. I still consider myself a newbee,compared to other users. I've still got a lot to learn about all of the wikiprojects and I will be a good boy on every single one of em, and you'll get what you get, no questions asked. As long as no one gives me grief, we'll get along just fine. The unblock request will accompany this letter.
Todd Schoolcraft ( talk) 17:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
SchoolcraftT ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
see letter
Decline reason:
Feel free to correct me if I have misinterpreted what you are saying here, but it appears that you are suggesting that there be no discussion, just a simple yes or no answer. If that is the case, and you are unwilling to discuss the circumstances that led to this block, then the answer is no. You were indef blocked after prolonged discussion, and given the socking and so forth, I don't think you should be unblocked without another discussion. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:12, 2 March 2010 (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.
We have processes for dealing with copyrighted images, either through fair use rationales or permissions or e-mails to OTRS. We all started somewhere, and that's fine - everyone makes mistakes. One of the interesting things about Wikipedia, though, is that our edits remain in the record, and a review of your edits gives me concern. The problem here, and the primary reason for the block, I believe, was that you were repeatedly asked to do things differently, and you refused to do so. You were asked to specifically discuss changes you wanted made to an article, and you refused (as per Talk:Mountain Parkway Byway). You conducted yourself poorly, including this edit threatening blocks.
If you want to edit here, you need to work with other editors, you can't sidestep them with alternative versions of articles, you can't disregard policies regarding copyright, and you can't threaten other users when things don't go your way. Even here, you're accusing other editors of lying, which isn't backed by the edits I've reviewed. I appreciate that you take responsibility for your conduct; that's a wonderful first step. But every admin who reviews your block will ask the same question, after looking at your edits - what assurance do we have that you won't continue disruption? We can't ignore the past, but this is your chance to learn from it and show us that you can edit collaboratively and within policy. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I can provide you the ticket number that matches the permission that I mentioned in the letter. I apoligize if I don't make sense sometimes. Also I was't creating alernate articles more like a replacement. Todd Schoolcraft ( talk) 20:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
note I'm posting after the page was protected but as the letter implies I have confirmed permission and support this request I should clarify my position as it stands at this time.
Schootcraft posted Gnangarra has already reviewed the permission and I waiting on an e-mail from him. for the record I have not reviewed the permission as such I have only reviewed the situation as an independent admin in regards to issues on Commons, yes I have read the OTRS ticket. In reviewing the issues there I noted that the permission wasn't sufficient to resolve the issue and that a response from the OTRS agent(not me) had been sent. I also said to Schoolcraft that after the permission was recieved I'd unprotect his talk page on Commons so as to enable him to post an unblocked request there. I dont/wont support any unblock request without this occuring first. Gnan garra 23:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about the mix up on my last unblock request. Hopefully my comment underneath the previous request cleared everything up. Feel free to post comments to this unblock request
SchoolcraftT ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
See "A letter from SchoolcraftT (re-posted due to Confusion on section title)
Decline reason:
I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Glass Cobra 22:34, 2 March 2010 (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.
SchoolcraftT ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Blueboy96 claimed that I had a serious misunderstanding about copyright and fair use, but I've got a bettter understanding than what the block is referencing, and thus is no longer needed for damage control. The sock attempts mentioned below was self-caught, meaning that I caught it before it was detected, and I think it was caused by an problem in which I log out and i don't realise it.
Decline reason:
Per discussion below. This charade has been allowed to go on for far too long; I am protecting the talk page so admins can focus on users who might actually have valid arguments for unblock. — Daniel Case ( talk) 17:44, 3 March 2010 (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.
Todd, you've been asked multiple times, here and on Commons, to demonstrate that this is true by explaining (a) what was wrong with the information you gave about the items you uploaded (b) what you should have done or said (c) what was wrong with the information you provided on the OTRS ticket, and what you would have needed to have done, and (d) explain in your own words the circumstances in which you can claim that you are the owner of an item.
So far, you've never done that. If you can't do it now, then I believe you should remain blocked. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 13:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
More like a technical problem than a sockpuppet. Todd Schoolcraft ( talk) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I dont know whats going on, but I keep logging off without doing anything. Please advise.
JTS
SchoolcraftT ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was wrong to let the editwar cloud my better judgement, and I shoud no have socke ( witch was out of frustration),and I've been gullable sometines and it has hurt me sometimes adn I knew about copyrights and fair use, but i didn' know everything . My behavor was indeade inapropriate and I'm sorry that I caused so much trouble. IF you unblock me, I will do whaterver it takes to earn back your trust.
Decline reason:
I see 5 months of trying to argue that copyright was not broken, and then the suggestion that the copyvios had actually been approved, AND calling commons admins "jerks". I think that admin Beeblebrox has the right idea. Todd: read WP:OFFER. If you edit anonymously, or create another account between now and 6 months from today (that makes in November 16 in my timezone), then the counter will immediately become reset for a fresh 6 months. During that time, read all about copyright - both on Wikipedia, and in law: what you have done is put Wikipedia at a serious risk, and because of that, unblocking now is not safe. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:21, 16 May 2010 (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.
As the original blocking admin, I have to agree with Beeblebrox, Huntster and Brian above. Brian and Ellen explained to you how copyright works back in January, and yet you didn't find the time to change the rationales for your images. Not only that, you claimed to own images from a video game. As I told you back in February, we have no choice but to take a hard line because this is something that could literally get the Wikimedia Foundation sued out of existence. Blueboy 96 21:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
DO NOT repost that email here. I have removed it as it contained information which identified the copyright holder (obviously) which should not be posted in public space. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 11:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal on User:SchoolcraftT's Commons talk page to unblock him both on Commons and en.wiki. I wanted to crosspost it here for people who don't watch his Commons talk page. Brian Powell ( talk) 22:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/4.248.56.96 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Hole in my sock jibber jabber 16:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, 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/SchoolcraftT. Thank you. Socked as 4.248.60.97. Bitmapped ( talk) 20:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
This user has been banned from several IRC channels. He wishes to point inquiring souls at his appeal on m:User talk:SchoolcraftT. — Pathoschild 18:38:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Blueboy
96 22:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)SchoolcraftT ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was the victium of an attack, and the images were indead created by me from non-copyrighted images created on my home computer.
Decline reason:
You were told innumerable times that you were doing things wrong and that you needed to work with other editors, not against them. You have also been warned a number of times about uploading copyrighted materials. FYI: Screenshots of copyrighted images from copyrighted software are not yours to share. Anyway, since you didn't address the reasons for your block, I am declining your request. — DoRD ( ?) ( talk) 22:41, 31 January 2010 (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.
SchoolcraftT ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I understand how serious copyrights are.
Decline reason:
You will have to do better than that. Read up on all of Wikipedia's image policies and copyright laws. Understand what public domain, creative commons and such other terms mean. And then come back and an admin will assess your request. SGGH ping! 13:10, 2 February 2010 (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.
SchoolcraftT ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I understand how serious copyrights are, and I read all acoumpaning policies
Decline reason:
This is no more convincing than the above request. Sandstein 14:11, 2 February 2010 (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.
I strongly oppose unblocking at this point, given that this user has been caught socking twice this morning. One of them contends that the Shooting Range images were not copyvios--which proves he really doesn't understand copyright and makes me wonder if we're dealing with wanton disregard here. Blueboy 96 14:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
-- Todd Schoolcraft ( talk) 14:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
SchoolcraftT ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I read and understand all the poicies conerning copyricght, and I wont enfring copyrights again.
Decline reason:
I can't tell, from reading this, whether you actually do understand the copyright policies, or are simply saying that you understand them in order to be unblocked. And I'd oppose unblocking anyway, if you're using sockpuppet accounts- that's so dishonest that nothing you say can be believed. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 14:33, 2 February 2010 (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.
SchoolcraftT ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Yes, I did read and understand all the policies concering fair use. Copyrights and public Domain and understood them, and I was cincere when I said i'll never ever do any of those thing nor that I would sockpuppet again. I wote this request from the heart. I admit to everything that I was blocked for (Diesruptive Edits).
Decline reason:
Reading the discussion below, I see no indication that you either understand the issues that led to your block or that you will cease your disruptive editing if you were unblocked. TN X Man 16:50, 2 February 2010 (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.
-- Todd Schoolcraft ( talk) 15:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I storngly dissagree with what you said the articl was what it was when i created it since June Nobody had touch it until you came along. I had the right as a wikipedian to verrify all the information that was put into that article. Give ti about a month and then well talk. Beside the so called finger pointing was for a diffrent article. The indefine Block is harsh, in fact too harsh. The origgonal bock shold have been sufficiant. The Image poicy in my opinion needs to be ironed out so confusion like this would never happen again. Unimpeded is one thing, hapered is something else, and I ment every word I said in that request. -- Todd Schoolcraft ( talk) 15:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Todd, after noticing that all of the images you uploaded had no data about them, I had several other admins take a look. One of them pointed out that at least one image you uploaded was far too old for you to have created it yourself. This image was uploaded in October, and you had ample time to change the image information to reflect this. Based on this revelation and what happened yesterday, I can only conclude that you have a serious misunderstanding of copyright and fair use.
For this reason, I've extended your block indefinitely. This may seem harsh, but you have to realize that the Wikimedia Foundation can literally be sued out of existence for copyright violations, so we have no choice but to take a firm line on this issue. I would advise very strongly against requesting an unblock until you can prove that you understand how serious this is. Blueboy 96 23:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I realise how seriousde this is,but if you tell me which one or ones it it, i can fix it imedeiately. -- Todd Schoolcraft ( talk) 09:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict with block review admin) Todd, the problem is that BlueBoy doesn't think you understand how copyright works at all. Rather than the unblock request you have posted, I suggest you go and read all the stuff you can find on Wikipedia and on Commons about copyright, then come back and explain exactly when you can claim that you are the creator of an image, when an image is public domain, when you need to use a fair use rationale, and what one of those might say.-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 13:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
that was not intended for you,but for some other user.-- Todd Schoolcraft ( talk) 16:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I think I've been very generous in that I haven't disabled this talk page yet. But this is the second time I've had to restore discussion related to your request that you have tried to remove. If you are still requesting unblock, leave the related discussion in place. Once you are no longer requesting unblock, you are welcome to archive all the discussions you like. Next time, I will disable your ability to edit this talk page. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 16:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
-- Todd Schoolcraft ( talk) 16:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 16:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I never was a good speller anyway. It has become painfll for me,and l like the protection idea but lets concider a week or two on the protection.
Thank you -- Todd Schoolcraft ( talk) 16:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Please stop avoiding your block. If you want to have a chance at getting unblocked, you can do one of two things:
You need to step back and take some time off. Every time you request a new unblock without understanding the problem or edit around your block by creating a new account or using an IP address, people are less likely to unblock you. If it keeps up, you're going to have a very difficult time ever being allowed to edit again. Shell babelfish 13:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
As you all know by now, On February 1st been accused of copyright violations, edit warring exc. and was blocked for it. Since then I had talked to the copyright owner and was granted perission to use those images that were deleted, and yes its genuine unlike what most permission volunteers have said. If you want a copy of the permission, I will gladly provide a copy of the permission, as long as you provide me an e-mail address. Gnangarra has already reviewed the permission and I waiting on an e-mail from him.
As far as the edit war, it was just a simple misunderstanding of what was relevant in some articles, happens all the time. I should not have added to it, it was inexpiable behavior on my part. I am more mild-mannered than that.
I should not have socked at all, its inexplicable even for me to do that just to prove a point, make it inexcusable. It should not have been done at all.
I take full responsibility for everything that I have done wrong.
Lets put prior history where its supposed to be, in the past, and lets not cut each other's thoughts either by bringing up anything that happened in the past. I take lies and Personal attacks very seriously. I still consider myself a newbee,compared to other users. I've still got a lot to learn about all of the wikiprojects and I will be a good boy on every single one of em, and you'll get what you get, no questions asked. As long as no one gives me grief, we'll get along just fine. The unblock request will accompany this letter.
Todd Schoolcraft ( talk) 17:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
SchoolcraftT ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
see letter
Decline reason:
Feel free to correct me if I have misinterpreted what you are saying here, but it appears that you are suggesting that there be no discussion, just a simple yes or no answer. If that is the case, and you are unwilling to discuss the circumstances that led to this block, then the answer is no. You were indef blocked after prolonged discussion, and given the socking and so forth, I don't think you should be unblocked without another discussion. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:12, 2 March 2010 (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.
We have processes for dealing with copyrighted images, either through fair use rationales or permissions or e-mails to OTRS. We all started somewhere, and that's fine - everyone makes mistakes. One of the interesting things about Wikipedia, though, is that our edits remain in the record, and a review of your edits gives me concern. The problem here, and the primary reason for the block, I believe, was that you were repeatedly asked to do things differently, and you refused to do so. You were asked to specifically discuss changes you wanted made to an article, and you refused (as per Talk:Mountain Parkway Byway). You conducted yourself poorly, including this edit threatening blocks.
If you want to edit here, you need to work with other editors, you can't sidestep them with alternative versions of articles, you can't disregard policies regarding copyright, and you can't threaten other users when things don't go your way. Even here, you're accusing other editors of lying, which isn't backed by the edits I've reviewed. I appreciate that you take responsibility for your conduct; that's a wonderful first step. But every admin who reviews your block will ask the same question, after looking at your edits - what assurance do we have that you won't continue disruption? We can't ignore the past, but this is your chance to learn from it and show us that you can edit collaboratively and within policy. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I can provide you the ticket number that matches the permission that I mentioned in the letter. I apoligize if I don't make sense sometimes. Also I was't creating alernate articles more like a replacement. Todd Schoolcraft ( talk) 20:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
note I'm posting after the page was protected but as the letter implies I have confirmed permission and support this request I should clarify my position as it stands at this time.
Schootcraft posted Gnangarra has already reviewed the permission and I waiting on an e-mail from him. for the record I have not reviewed the permission as such I have only reviewed the situation as an independent admin in regards to issues on Commons, yes I have read the OTRS ticket. In reviewing the issues there I noted that the permission wasn't sufficient to resolve the issue and that a response from the OTRS agent(not me) had been sent. I also said to Schoolcraft that after the permission was recieved I'd unprotect his talk page on Commons so as to enable him to post an unblocked request there. I dont/wont support any unblock request without this occuring first. Gnan garra 23:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about the mix up on my last unblock request. Hopefully my comment underneath the previous request cleared everything up. Feel free to post comments to this unblock request
SchoolcraftT ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
See "A letter from SchoolcraftT (re-posted due to Confusion on section title)
Decline reason:
I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Glass Cobra 22:34, 2 March 2010 (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.
SchoolcraftT ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Blueboy96 claimed that I had a serious misunderstanding about copyright and fair use, but I've got a bettter understanding than what the block is referencing, and thus is no longer needed for damage control. The sock attempts mentioned below was self-caught, meaning that I caught it before it was detected, and I think it was caused by an problem in which I log out and i don't realise it.
Decline reason:
Per discussion below. This charade has been allowed to go on for far too long; I am protecting the talk page so admins can focus on users who might actually have valid arguments for unblock. — Daniel Case ( talk) 17:44, 3 March 2010 (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.
Todd, you've been asked multiple times, here and on Commons, to demonstrate that this is true by explaining (a) what was wrong with the information you gave about the items you uploaded (b) what you should have done or said (c) what was wrong with the information you provided on the OTRS ticket, and what you would have needed to have done, and (d) explain in your own words the circumstances in which you can claim that you are the owner of an item.
So far, you've never done that. If you can't do it now, then I believe you should remain blocked. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 13:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
More like a technical problem than a sockpuppet. Todd Schoolcraft ( talk) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I dont know whats going on, but I keep logging off without doing anything. Please advise.
JTS
SchoolcraftT ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was wrong to let the editwar cloud my better judgement, and I shoud no have socke ( witch was out of frustration),and I've been gullable sometines and it has hurt me sometimes adn I knew about copyrights and fair use, but i didn' know everything . My behavor was indeade inapropriate and I'm sorry that I caused so much trouble. IF you unblock me, I will do whaterver it takes to earn back your trust.
Decline reason:
I see 5 months of trying to argue that copyright was not broken, and then the suggestion that the copyvios had actually been approved, AND calling commons admins "jerks". I think that admin Beeblebrox has the right idea. Todd: read WP:OFFER. If you edit anonymously, or create another account between now and 6 months from today (that makes in November 16 in my timezone), then the counter will immediately become reset for a fresh 6 months. During that time, read all about copyright - both on Wikipedia, and in law: what you have done is put Wikipedia at a serious risk, and because of that, unblocking now is not safe. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:21, 16 May 2010 (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.
As the original blocking admin, I have to agree with Beeblebrox, Huntster and Brian above. Brian and Ellen explained to you how copyright works back in January, and yet you didn't find the time to change the rationales for your images. Not only that, you claimed to own images from a video game. As I told you back in February, we have no choice but to take a hard line because this is something that could literally get the Wikimedia Foundation sued out of existence. Blueboy 96 21:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
DO NOT repost that email here. I have removed it as it contained information which identified the copyright holder (obviously) which should not be posted in public space. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 11:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal on User:SchoolcraftT's Commons talk page to unblock him both on Commons and en.wiki. I wanted to crosspost it here for people who don't watch his Commons talk page. Brian Powell ( talk) 22:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/4.248.56.96 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Hole in my sock jibber jabber 16:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, 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/SchoolcraftT. Thank you. Socked as 4.248.60.97. Bitmapped ( talk) 20:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
This user has been banned from several IRC channels. He wishes to point inquiring souls at his appeal on m:User talk:SchoolcraftT. — Pathoschild 18:38:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)