SchoolcraftT

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for WP:OWN violations, edit warring and copyright violations. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Blueboy96 22:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

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.

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process. You may still contest any current block by e-mailing unblock-en-l, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

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.

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).

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. Blueboy96 14:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wanted disregard my hiny, i unitentionaly sockpuppeted. Thats the truth. Stop this nonsence. Use some common sence here.

I'm not sure why you struck out Blueboy96's comments, since he's completely correct. You didn't 'unintentionally' use sockpuppets. That isn't something that happens by accident; your cat didn't walk across the keyboard in a way that randomly edited while you were trying to respect your block. You made a bad choice. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2010 (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).

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.

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).

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. TNXMan 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.

No one is going to unblock you if you can't even explain the rules you are going to follow. Several people have told you that. You aren't going to get to keep making unblock requests that can't be granted forever; if you continue ignoring the people who are responding to you and wasting admin time with the same ungrantable request, you'll inevitably lose access to this talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The block shoud have ended today, but Blueboy96 had the notion to indefenity block me for bo reason whatsoev, at least not for something new anyway. I want the block end today as is should. THIS IS NOT AN UNBLOCK REQUEST. No I hadn't igored the responces, my requests were based on the responces. yes the block was excessive, and its the only time I have been blocked, and I intend to keep in that way. Don't let Blueboy96 or any otheruser persuade you. Please reconcieder unblocking me. Hopefully commen sence will prevail.

--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There is ssomething that you need to know FisherQueen, I had caught Blueboy96 vandaize the edits that were with the article Shooting Range (video game). He should be delt with the same way I was. This is something diffrent thats unrelated to the block. Unsigned comment by SchoolcraftT

I strongly support continuing the indefinite block on User:SchoolcraftT. If you look at his history with Mountain Parkway Byway and its talk page, he acts like he wants to play nice but will be back to his old tricks soon enough if allowed to edit again. To me, his use of sockpuppets and finger-pointing today along with his continued violation of copyright warnings in the past show that he has no interest in following Wikipedia policy/procedure or working in a collaborative manner. He just wants to be able to do what he wants to do, unimpeded by any others. Brian Powell (talk) 15:52, 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)

Actually, several others had tagged Mountain Parkway Byway for various problems including advertising issues and needing wikifying before I got involved after stumbling on it because the article was poorly categorized. The fact that you were the primary editor for several months is irrelevant. You post an article on Wikipedia and it is open for others to edit. (See WP:OWNER again.)

You don't have a "right to verrify all the information" - you have a responsibility to ensure that the material comes from reliable sources and is properly cited so that everyone can verify it. I did that with my edits, whereas the original revision was poorly cited and only had one reference listed that no public library in West Virginia seems to carry. I have no clue where you're going with this "give it a month and then we'll talk" comment.

The image policy isn't confusing. You were claiming ownership of photos you didn't take. You were told to stop and how to correctly do things, but you ignored this advice. Brian Powell (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

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. Blueboy96 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)

I told you about the problems with File:Backway Routes.ogg, File:Byway.ogg and the Lowther's store image, but you never made any attempt to fix them. You told me that you were going to ask to have the two OGG files deleted but you never did that, either. Brian Powell (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I said that I was going to delete them anyway, that also appied to Byway.ogg eventhough I did't say anything about it. The admins actualy did me a favor by deleting them for me.

You said that you were going to have them deleted. I even suggested to you that you request speedy deletion since you claimed you wanted them gone. You never followed through. Saying something and actually doing it are two different things. Brian Powell (talk) 16:31, 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)

Elen of the Roads, keep in mind that I'm still realively new.

I do understand copyrught, but i don't understand hwo the apply to sertain things. Its all the thing a newbie will learn. --Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Todd, you keep trotting out this "I'm new" comment whenever you get caught. You have copyright issues, say "I'm new" when you get caught. Elen and I explain the issue to you. You ignore what we told you. You should know better given what you claim is your academic background and at this point, you've been warned multiple times. Saying "I'm new" as an excuse works the first or second time. Not the fifth. Brian Powell (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I said that I'm still relatively ne. I've stll got a lot to learn. Stop attacking my word. Previous unsigned comment by SchoolcraftT

This morning, you posted a threatening comment on my talk page that you were going to try to get me and others blocked. Should we just chalk this up to a newbie mistake too? Brian Powell (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

that was not intended for you,but for some other user.--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning

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)

the discussion is getting out of control, plase end this block so my talk page dosen't turn into a battlefield.

--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion isn't out of control. You just don't enjoy being held responsible for the rules you have broken. Judging from your edits and your spelling, I'd guess that you are a young teenager or child who simply doesn't have the skills yet to write for a major international encyclopedia. That doesn't mean you will never be able to edit here- you will learn a great deal about reading, writing, and getting along with others in your high school classes, and someday you will probably be more ready to help at Wikipedia. If you feel that this discussion is becoming painful for you, I'd be glad to end your unblock request and lock the page so that no one can edit it for a year or two- just let me know. -

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)

I've blocked the talk page for one month- less than I think is necessary, more than you asked for. At that time, you're welcome to request unblock by clearly explaining what you did wrong and how you'll edit differently in the future. Or you can choose to wait until you're sure you're ready to write for publication. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Other

Please stop avoiding your block. If you want to have a chance at getting unblocked, you can do one of two things:

1. Stop editing. Do not create any more accounts or edit as an IP address. Show that you can respect the block by not editing for at least 6 months. Use this time to learn about Wikipedia policy.
2. Show us 3 months of good work another wikiproject like Wikitionary or Wikispecies or Simple Wikipedia. This means following all the rules at that wikiproject, not getting blocked and not messing around here in the meantime.

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)

A letter from SchoolcraftT (no spam Comments Please)

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)

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).

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.

I didn't mean no commsnets at all, that sould say no spam comments please. Sorry about that will re-post the unblock request. Todd Schoolcraft (talk)

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 didn't mean that we ignore Wikipedia policy as long as we learn form our mistakes, as I have done, and that's what I meant by the lets put prior history where its supposed to be statement.like I said the will be some disarrangement's, and I'm not accusing anyone of lying. That statement was talking about me personally, and that's just the way I am. When I'm mad as someone, as was the case when I made that statement, It sometimes get ugly, as was the case. Just a byproduct of a heated discussion. Rest assured that that will not happped ever again. AS far as working with others, it sorta hard when you have been the only editor for as long as I did before this fiasco started. Anyway I'll do my very best to be the best editor that I can.

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)

The OTRS ticket link is https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2010021610052123, and the ticket has been declined as providing no evidence of authentic licensing or permission from copyright owner. In other words, nothing has changed. The continuous image copyright violations were bad enough, but the talk page discussions at Mountain Parkway Byway indicate that you have a mindset of "your way or no way at all". — Huntster (t @ c) 21:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And you were refusing to accept the edits that someone else made to the article, so you kept creating new versions and trying to get the original article deleted THREE TIMES. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to improve upon the original, which apparently you refused to see that, and your statement Huntster is so false its not even funny.Todd Schoolcraft (talk)

Todd, you were refusing to behave in a collaborative manner. As I and other editors have you told you, you do not own the article and need to work constructively with others. Your style of calling others who disagree with you liars (as in your comment about Hunster right here) and claiming that others who discuss problems with your behavior personal attacks (as you have done to me several times) do not support your contention that you will behave in an appropriate manner. Brian Powell (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That was then this is now and please stop these attacks or I'll have this re-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchoolcraftT (talk • contribs) 22:28, March 2, 2010

We're not discussing things from years ago. The original actions that led to your blocking occurred since mid-January. You were again warned here on Wikipedia here over the weekend for your behavior ([1]) and you've been committing the same problems today. Plus your behavior over on Wikimedia Commons that led to your blocking there within the past month ([2]). Brian Powell (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

response by User:Gnangarra

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. Gnangarra 23:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

re-posting of unblock request due to mix up

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

One other thing only comment on the contents of the letter, not about edit histories.

Todd Schoolcraft (talk)

Your edit history and past behavior are very relevant issues of discussion when considering if you should be unblocked. You can't just unilaterally declare them off-limits. Your refusal to discuss these issues is a part of why your unblock requests earlier today were declined. Brian Powell (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason that the other request was denied was because of a mix up on my part, and that was a request not putting something off-limits.Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2010 (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).

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

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. GlassCobra 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.

Elementary my dear GlasscCobra, it did address the block. The block was for the thing that were listed in the first two sentences in the letter. The letter was part of the unblock request. Why you thought it didn't I don't get --Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2010 (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).

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)

Thats not true there was nothing wrong with the ticket, just some jerks: on commons refused it because they claimed that the copyright holder ( in this case Dr Anderson). didn't write it when in reality he had asked me to do it for him, which should not have affected the permission in any way, I have done everything that was needed to be done, and statement d doesn't apply anymore because the claim is recended, so stop posting this nonsence, or the page will be protected.Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I rest my case. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The above comment was taken out of context the word jerk was used very loosly. Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that SchoolcraftT seems to think his problems are always caused by others. If he ever makes a mistake, it's just because he's a "newbie" even if he's been asked to stop doing something and told the proper way. I see no way he can be a useful contributor and work in a collaborative way with this sort of attitude.

I'm not an admin, but it seems apparent to me that SchoolcraftT has been abusing his talk page editing privileges and the unblock process. I'd strongly support revoking his talk page access again, this time for a much longer period than just a month. Brian Powell (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with my attitude, and stop this attack. I will not let this page be protected for no reason again. If it should be protected it will be for protection from attacks like this. I have a right to state my case, and that right should not be revoked at all. Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And we have a new SchoolcraftT sockpuppet: 72.251.24.26 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS). Brian Powell (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(Self Caught and fixed Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC))

     More like a technical problem than a sockpuppet. Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No it, was not self-caught. After I pointed it out, you tried deleting my comment and only after I restored it did you go back to correct the signature. Brian Powell (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It was caught none the less Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Logged off for no reason

I dont know whats going on, but I keep logging off without doing anything. Please advise.

JTS

Unblock

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).

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.

• Since I've already declined to unblock you once I'll leave this for someone else to review, but I think you might want to consider the standard offer. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• User:SchoolcraftT has made these same promises before that he'd start behaving, but he always came right back with the same sorts of problems and personal attacks that led to his banning. He was also told numerous times about the copyright issues and how to resolve them but he never seemed interested in following the proper procedures. Before he comes back and edits here on en.wiki (or on Wikimedia Commons, where he is also indefinitely blocked), I'd suggest that SchoolcraftT go to another Wiki project and establish a good reputation there over a period of several months to prove that he can work collaboratively with others. Brian Powell (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I still see no reason to AGF regarding this user, at this point. My major concern is the large number of obviously copyrighted images that Schoolcraft uploaded, and the various conversations above show very clearly that he believed no wrong was done and could not (or would not) grasp the problems with uploading other peoples' work. But as Bmpowell suggests, re-establishing his credibility on another project (such as the Simple English wiki) would help mend those ongoing concerns. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

with all due respect hinster, its Bmpowell's information in article "Mountain PArkway BywaY" that now in question . I recenly drove the Mountain parkway Byway yesterday and the information that there now is not accureate. I'm not saying whats wrong at this time but if you want to know, I'll tell you. I've allready estabished a reputation on the other wikiprojects with no trouble whatsoever. , and as far as those images that were deleted. I had sent permission to OTRS, be it uncucessfuly, and its being worked on even as we speak. I also bring googls map crediblity as a source into question. Those kind of sites can be missleading. I can and will work colaberatly, and that was proven 10 months ago. There is no need to be concerned Hinster I honsestly didn't know that the images in question were copyrighted. I knew about the copyright process, but Blueboy96's block reason was majorly exagurated. I missunderdstod it yes, but it was minor. Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

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. Blueboy96 21:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

i took that into condieration when I sent a permission e-mal about two months ago from the actual copyright owner, but we were getting the run around, majorly. I was going by what I was told. Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Todd, it appears that the problem with the email on the OTRS ticket is that you wrote it and the copyright holder didn't. Can you see why that was a problem? Can you explain here when you would hold the copyright in something, and when someone else would? I've asked you often enough, and explained it several times.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about a entirely diffrent one. Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 12:23, 17 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)

Unblock proposal

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)

Sockpuppetry case

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)

October 2010

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)

IRC bans

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)

SchoolcraftT has been indefinitely banned here and on Commons. He has tried to get unbanned multiple times and has been denied each time because he immediately demonstrates that he would go right back to his previous behavior. He has used IP and username sockpuppets to circumvent the ban. He's had way too many chances already and, in my opinion, it is not worth the resources to offer him any more. He's not going to change. Bitmapped (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)