User talk:EastCoaster007

EastCoaster007, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi EastCoaster007! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2014 (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).

EastCoaster007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Kww, what's this all about? I am not Jazzerino. Did you notice that Dan re-added 10 files that violate copyrights? Is this what you are defending, because the WMF would frown upon this. Eastcoaster (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You will not be unblocked until the the legal threats below are retracted. If then. — Daniel Case (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2014 (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.

If that had been what it was about, I wouldn't have left your edits removing the files in place. I normally revert all edits by sockpuppets, and I didn't in this case. However, any quick examination of your timing and interests compared to the other Jazzerino socks doesn't leave much doubt.—Kww(talk) 17:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the possibility that you are lumping everyone who has a bone to pick with Dan under the umbrella of being a Jazzerino sock. You might also want to consider that you are quite involved with this user and many of the same articles, and maybe your eagerness to defend him at all conflicts is clouding your judgment. Are you really going to indeff any and all accounts that take issue with Dan56 as socks of Jazzerino, because you will inevitably "catch" some folks who are not socking. I will tell you that Dan56 is a subject of concern for many people, not just Jazzerino, but more to the point, you are now defending copyright violations in an effort to stop an account that has not edited Wikipedia in more than 2 months. You should not have removed my copyvio concerns from that RfC/U until you have taken a look at what a serious issue this is with Dan. He uploaded 90 OGG files that do not satisfy NFCC, which is there is protect the WMF from legal complaints. I am not Jazzerino and I cannot be linked to him technically, so why are you going out on a limb when all of my concerns were valid? Eastcoaster (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviourally, I'm not out on a limb at all.—Kww(talk) 18:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that seems right to you, but you will end up blocking more innocent people like me, because there is no reason to be certain that I am a sock; I'm not, and I deserve to be treated fairly. I think this looks really bad for you, because all I did was raise a valid concern about Dan56's disregard for copyrights. Why are you putting all your effort into protecting Dan, when Dan is putting the entire project at risk? You are appearing as Dan's personal admin bodyguard, and your actions in Dan's favor in content disputes at various articles is concerning. Like I said, consider the possibility that more than one person has an issue with Dan56. If you do that, you might start to see that not every account with an issue with Dan is Jazzerino. Indeffing a dozen accounts based on the DUCK test is a mistake, but I wonder when you will stop. Do you think Dan will stop using this to his advantage? My concerns about his copyvios are valid, so your removal of them from the RfC/U is a blatant cover-up. Why aren't you concerned about Dan's violation of copyright laws? Is anti-socking the prime directive, because I see copyright violations as the cardinal sin, not socking. Eastcoaster (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan56's copyright violations[edit]

Jimbo Wales, per WP:NFCCE: "A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria." Kww, why have you granted a special exemption for Dan56? I identified 100 files that have serious NFCC concerns, and it's going on 48 hours now, but none of these files have been deleted. Why are you breaking WMF policy to protect Dan56? Eastcoaster (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2014 (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).

EastCoaster007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Daniel Case, okay, I've removed the legal threat. Sorry, I didn't think that was a threat, but I see how it was one now; I won't do it again. You admins are making a mistake here by indeffing everyone who has an issue with Dan56. I am not Jazzerino, so will you please unblock me? Eastcoaster (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you aren't Jazzerino, then there's a surprisingly large number of funny coincidences. However, even if I give you the maximum benefit of the doubt, and assume that you aren't the same person as Jazzerino, there are at least a couple of other accounts that clearly are the same person as you, and if your various accounts have been mistakenly identified as sockpuppets of Jazzerino, it doesn't really matter, because they are certainly sockpuppets of someone. (And, for what it's worth, the evidence I have found has nothing whatever to do with Dan56, so that is irrelevant.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2014 (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.

Incidentally, your claims that Kww is somehow protecting Dan56's copyright infringements does not square well with edits such as this and this. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]