User talk:Peterjack1

Welcome, roadfan!

Hello, Peterjack1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask a question on your talk page.

If you are interested, there is already a community of users who are roadfans or who edit articles about roads, just like you! Stop by any of these WikiProjects—WP:HWY (worldwide), WP:AURD (Australia), WP:CARD (Canada), WP:HKRD (Hong Kong), WP:INRD (India), WP:UKRD (United Kingdom), or WP:USRD (United States)—and contribute. If your interest is in roads in the United States, there is an excellent new user's guide. There is a wealth of information and resources for creating a great article. If you have questions about any of these WikiProjects, you can ask on each project's talk page, or you can ask me!

If you like communicating through IRC, feel free to ask questions at #wikipedia-en-roads ^connect as well. Here, there are several editors who are willing to answer your questions. For more information, see WP:HWY/IRC.

Again, welcome! Rs chen 7754 18:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to your block duration

Hi Peterjack1. This message is to let you know that your block has been extended to an indefinite duration that does not expire. This modification was made following a recent report filed at Wikipedia's sockpuppet investigations noticeboard. The evidence presented in the report and the findings that were determined were what prompted this change to be necessary. If you wish to appeal your block, you may do so by following the instructions provided on the Wikipedia guideline page for appealing a block. Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:26, 2 April 2019 (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).

Peterjack1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm not trying to damage anything here. I got blocked for being in an edit war that I didn't even start. A user named Cards stalks me and undoes all my edits. I came to Wikipedia in good faith but its like Lord of the Flies. This block is not preventing any damage because I never inflicted any in the first place. If Cards found information that I put to be inaccurate (which wasn't my intention nor was it consistently the case) the he shouldn't have gotten in an edit war with me. I apologize for sock puppeting. I just wanted to start over and not have to deal with it. In addition, I feel that Cards should be punished for WP:PA as he portrayed me as a troll when I couldn't even respond. Thank you for the consideration.

Decline reason:

Under the circumstances, I think the best chance for you being unblocked is to take the Standard Offer. PhilKnight (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Peterjack1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why? Cards isn't getting a six month punishment. He started the edit war and he personally attacked me.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:39, 3 April 2019 (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.

Peterjack1 - I'm going to let another administrator review and process your unblock request. This way, your request will be considered fairly and by someone whose completely uninvolved with the situations and your block. Please be patient; it can take some time for someone to review your request. Rest assured, someone will review it soon. :-) Good luck and best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Peterjack1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have consistently made productive and useful edits to Wikipedia. I am clearly here in good faith and I don’t believe my indefinite ban was ever just. The consequences for “edit warring” are too severe, and often I was protecting a page from vandals who would refuse to use a talk page and got punished for it. Edit warring should be punishable by being blocked from the specific page instead of the entire encyclopedia. 90% of my edits have been productive and mistakes from when I first started out over a year ago shouldn’t follow me forever. In addition, the way “Sockpuppetry” is addressed in unfair and authoritarian. A Sockpuppet shouldn’t be blocked just for that if they aren’t a vandal, a Sockpuppet should just get a longer sentence if they break another rule. For almost a year as Smith0124 I made constructive edits. I never used any alternate account to cause any harm. Second, an edit should be judged on its own merits and not by who made it. An edit that is constructive or that combats vandalism shouldn’t be reverted just because it was made by a “Sockpuppet”. That’s counterproductive and against Wikipedia’s philosophy. Third, “Check Users” have too much power. A random person on the internet is “vetted“ by other random people on the internet and given powers to stalk people and find out their location, internet provider, and more. That’s a gross violation of personal privacy and I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s illegal. Point is, I’ve been a beneficiary to Wikipedia and I should be allowed to edit freely. I’ve tried my best the whole time to make good edits and to do the right thing. Peterjack1 (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It sounds to me like you think that because you gave Wikipedia some money that you should be permitted to do whatever you deem necessary to Wikipedia without restriction or limitation- or at least only those that affect you. Furthermore, you have demonstrated that's exactly what you will do anyway. Until that changes, there isn't anything else to discuss here. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2020 (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.

@331dot: There you go. The mass removal of endorsements is vandalism and breaks the rule of removing content. Peterjack1 (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule against "removing content". Content is removed from thousands of articles every day. A user is allowed in good faith to remove what they see as poorly cited endorsements; it's not vandalism, even if it is incorrect. Instead of calling it "vandalism" just because you disagree with it, you should direct the user to the appropriate consensus or guideline to support your position or show the user why things are the way they are. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you are now banned from editing Wikipedia, which means there must be a community discussion to remove the ban. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2020 (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).

Peterjack1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My words were misinterpreted. I did not “give Wikipedia money” nor do I think I should do whatever I damn please. If the analogy is that I made good edits to cover up bad ones, that’s simply not true. All my work has been in good faith and 90+% of my edits have been constructive. I have never made an edit with bad intentions or to harm the encyclopedia. And I don’t think I should do whatever I damn please, I just want the freedom to edit Wikipedia with good intentions like everyone else. I’m being treated like a bad person and subhuman but my intentions and vast majority of my editing record speak otherwise. I’ve made mistakes, yes, but none that warrant a lifetime ban, and nobody is perfect. Peterjack1 (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am only closing this to remove it from the queue while the discussion at WP:AN is proceeding. 331dot (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I interpreted "I’ve been a beneficiary to Wikipedia" as meaning that you have been financially beneficial to Wikipedia. If that was in error, I apologize. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: In no way have I given Wikipedia or anyone associated with it money. I meant beneficiary with my edits. Peterjack1 (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Hey, I still haven’t gotten an answer for my request. Peterjack1 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) A different admin will have to review this request, if I'm not mistaken. There's also the fact that you are, as 331dot mentioned, community banned (per WP:3X), so a simple unblock request will not be enough. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 22:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish, you may make a statement to appeal the community ban and as a courtesy I will transfer it to the administrator's noticeboard. If you would like time to consider your statement, I can temporarily close your unblock request to give you that time. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I will send you my statement in a little while. In the meantime, there are some articles that are in directly violation of consensus reached at Talk:2020 United States presidential election#Rfc on inclusion for the infobox, like what happened with Lisa Savage on the Maine senate page. Could you fix them?

Thanks a bunch in advance! Peterjack1 (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but editing by proxy is not permitted on this page; you may only use it(while blocked) to discuss a request to be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Here is my statement. Thank you for your help. Peterjack1 (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have consistently made productive and useful edits to Wikipedia. I am clearly here in good faith and I don’t believe my indefinite ban was ever just. The consequences for “edit warring” are too severe, and often I was protecting a page from vandals who would refuse to use a talk page and got punished for it. Edit warring should be punishable by being blocked from the specific page instead of the entire encyclopedia. 90% of my edits have been productive and mistakes from when I first started out over a year ago shouldn’t follow me forever. In addition, the way “Sockpuppetry” is addressed in unfair and authoritarian. A Sockpuppet shouldn’t be blocked just for that if they aren’t a vandal, a Sockpuppet should just get a longer sentence if they break another rule. For almost a year as Smith0124 I made constructive edits. I never used any alternate account to cause any harm. Second, an edit should be judged on its own merits and not by who made it. An edit that is constructive or that combats vandalism shouldn’t be reverted just because it was made by a “Sockpuppet”. That’s counterproductive and against Wikipedia’s philosophy. Third, “Check Users” have too much power. A random person on the internet is “vetted“ by other random people on the internet and given powers to stalk people and find out their location, internet provider, and more. That’s a gross violation of personal privacy and I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s illegal. Point is, I’ve been a helpful to Wikipedia and I should be allowed to edit freely. I’ve tried my best the whole time to make good edits and to do the right thing. Peterjack1 (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Unblock/unban discussion at WP:AN

Peterjack1 appealed their CBAN at AN. The appeal was unsuccessful. It is germane to note there was WP:check user evidence of block evasion in August of 2020. In future unblock/unban requests, Peterjack1 is urged to address their own behavior, how it led to being blocked and CBANned, and what they would do differently. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]