User talk:Jacob Peters

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Irpen 01:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holodomor

If I understand correctly you are the same person who made these edits and now continue logged in as per my request. Thanks a lot for logging in. Please always make sure you are logged in when editing. Other editors would appreciate your making their lives easier this way.

Now, I really think that your edits lead the article to a POV. It may have been POV too, I don't deny that. No one is perfect. That said, I request you to let me go over your edits. And then we can discuss the differences at talk. Are you done? --Irpen 01:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of your references do not cite page numbers. Please add them asap. --Irpen 05:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since you are editing right now, I request you cite page numbers to every ref to Davies and Wheatcroft now. TIA, --Irpen 02:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for you to finish with your changes before going over the article. But before you leave, please make sure that every ref to Wheatcroft is supplied with the page number. Every single one! It would make much easier for others and should be beneficial for your POV as well. Please double check the whole article for uncited page numbers. Thanks, --Irpen 03:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

56 revolution

First of all, now that you are logged in, please learn to SIGN your messages. You type four of these things: ~. Second of all, please stop vandalizing our article with your revisionist propaganda. Thanks and have a nice day. K. Lastochka 00:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, welcome to Wikipedia! Second, editors have worked unbelievably lot on the 56 revolution article. Please do not add unsourced sentences, statements to the article, because it ruins the others' work. It recently became featured article with 15! support votes, it means it meets featured article criteria, as it is:

"Factually accurate means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations."
"Neutral means that the article presents views fairly and without bias ; however, articles need not give minority views equal coverage ."

Thank you for your appreciation! NCurse _work 06:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using Citation Templates

Please use the citations found at WP:CITET when adding reference material, encapsulating the templates in the appropriate reference tags: "<ref></ref>". Thanks. DJ Silverfish 00:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

over 1 million deaths

why was this removed, do you dispute it? --Sugarcaddy 19:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit summaries

In addition to page numbers, I request that you make a good use of the "edit summary" field in ~~every~~ edit that you make. This is a common courtesy to other editors.

BTW, please double check Holodomor that you cited all page numbers. I am about to make a go over that article and I want to make sure I don't delete source-supported info only because the page number is missing. Thanks, --Irpen 22:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second this request. As I see, you edits to Joseph Stalin article got reverted. Some pieces may be improvement, but on the other hand, your deletions of text don't seem to be justified. Please also discuss yoor changes in the talk page whenever you see an opposition. `'mikkanarxi 22:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Deranged Zionist POV in Intro"

Your quote above from participation on the Hezbollah talk page is completely inappropriate langauge for Wikipedia. This is a community which includes people holding many opinions. Please act like a member of the community and avoid engaging in hate speech. Elizmr 18:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hate speech on the basis of politics is completely acceptable. Jacob Peters

Mr. Peters, I strongly disagree with that statement. Hate speech, pure nasty venomous hate speech, is never acceptable in a civilized society. If something is really evil then its evil-ness (is that a word??) will come through on its own without the ornamental use of inflammatory language. K. Lastochka 23:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article moves

Never ever make unproposed moves. This is a hige disruption and may result in blocks. --Irpen 23:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continued article moves

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Holodomor, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. TheQuandry 00:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes have been discussed. Stop with these silly threats. Jacob Peters

Stop removing my comments from the talk page. That is vandalism. TheQuandry 02:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 48 hours. Here are the reverts in question. Alex Bakharev 04:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have prolonged your block to 1 week for sockpuppeting and avoidance of the original block. See see [[1]] Alex Bakharev 09:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warned for personal attack

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

For this:

[2]

"The likes of Merzbow and Ultramarine are right-wing propagandists who have an agenda to push."

I'm curious to know if you are the same person as User:Kiske or not. You certainly sound very similar.

- Merzbow 03:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppeting

I have restarted your 1 week block for avoidance using a checkuser account. Refer to [3] for details. Please do not use sockpuppets, many good users were permabanned for it. Alex Bakharev 07:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reset your block, since you were avoiding it, working as User:204.102.210.1. Please do not do it again. Alex Bakharev 21:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to restart it again since you were avoiding the block working using different accounts. Please stop and wait the end of your block Alex Bakharev 03:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Peters, really, what's your problem? Your block is well within policies and block avoidance may lead to a permanent ban. What's going on with all these accounts? Two Zvezdas, Frunze, Schmidt... Please take the advise seriously. Sit your block out till the end. A week is not an eternity. Once its over resume editing without leaving inflammatory comments, edit warring and overhauling the controversial articles in a major way with removal of sourced material. (Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages#…but don't be reckless.)

Even if you want to change an account name, do not do it until your block expires and in the latter case do not resume the editing under the old account. Sockpuppets are caught sooner or later (sometimes later, true enough) and this is just a pain to everyone. Please behave. --Irpen 03:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence have you got for any of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Peters (talk • contribs)

Are you kidding? Listen, one acount per person. It's that simple. --Irpen 03:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That means don't edit as user:69.110.222.33 --C33 03:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can find serious proof for any of this, please stop wasting bandwith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Peters (talk • contribs)

Holodomor

If you want Holodomor to be moved, please open a move request. -- tariqabjotu 04:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move vandalism to Holodomor, Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, etc.

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. TheQuandry 16:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pages which do not cite sources have no choice but to be deleted. Jacob Peters

You have been blocked for disruptive editing, despite previous warnings and blocks for a period of two million seconds. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 01:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for sockpuppetry (again), as noted by the likely conclusion at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacob Peters for a period of twenty-eight days. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 15:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attempting to evade your block through sockpuppetry (or other means), or else the length of your block will continue to increase. -- tariqabjotu 15:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little note for you

Sometimes people come to Wikipedia really fired up about something. Quite often they wade in and try to "fix" something which, as it turns out, has been the result of lengthy discussion and debate, with the result that they re-open cans of worms or re-ignite old conflicts. Generally their changes get speedily reverted in an attempt to maintain calm. At this point they very often start revert warring, making aggressive assertions on various talk pages and meta pages, and generally making waves. And this usually results in a block. Which, very often, they try to work around by registering new accounts or editing anonymously. But we are a bunch of suspicious bastards and we watch the articles so that these attempts are rapidly detected and reverted, and the editor's block lengthened.

Sound familiar? It certainly does to us, because we have been here before. Many times.

Now, at this point, things go one of two ways: the editor either learns from their mistakes and starts doing things the Wikipedia way (which is by calm debate, citing sources, and sticking to specifics about the article rather than being drawn into attacking individual editors), or they get banned from the project. Guess which of these is most likely to have an influence on the articles that readers see? If your guess was the former, award yourself a gold start for perception and then start thinking about how you can put your case persuasively, with cited sources, and avoiding attacking people. If you can do that, you may even find yourself unblocked. If, on the other hand, your sole reason for being here is to Right Great Wrongs, then you are doomed to disappointment. Wikipedia does not exist to Right Great Wrongs, it exists to document them and maybe discuss what is being done to right them in the outside world. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox or campaigning tool.

So, rather than following the path of tendentious editing and disruption, I invite you to learn to work the Wiki way. But please do be aware that we are perfectly prepared to ban you forever from this site if needs be. We can't have angry mastodons in the project.

Happy New Year, Guy (Help!) 15:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, Again

You have been blocked for persistent block evasion, as established once again at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacob Peters for a period of thirty-five days. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 03:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You efforts to evade your block will be spotted, and your original block only increased. Those efforts are not to your benefit at all. -- tariqabjotu 03:47, 31 December 2006 (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).

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

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

No explanation for the numerous sockpuppets. It would be highly inappropriate to unblock you at this time. If you have avoided using sockpuppets for a reasonable period of time, perhaps six months, we may reconsider. -- Yamla 06:32, 3 February 2007 (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 would like to be unblocked. I understand to be more civil with other editors and to establish consensus before making changes.

Blocked One Last Time

You have been blocked indefinitely for nonstop sockpuppetry despite numerous warnings, blocks, entreaties, and second chances; if you're not going to play by the rules, don't play. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 20:10, 7 January 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

This block is unjustified because there is no serious evidence that I have had other user names. I have been blocked for the poorly defined "three revert rule" which tries to prevent changes from being made even though the people with whom I had a dispute who use meatpuppets have not been punished. I have not done anything disruptive to deteriorate the quality of this web site. Rather, my edits simply come into conflict with the partisan administrators at this web site.

Decline reason:

There is serious evidence; in fact, it is absolutely confirmed without a doubt at requests for checkuser. Declining your unblock request because you do not appear to understand how your actions are disruptive (not to mention lying about your actions). —bbatsell ¿? 21:47, 14 January 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have become familiar with Wikipedia's rules and understand to be more civil and calm in edits. I apologize for having created other user names.

Decline reason:

Your recent sock has been blocked ten minutes ago. Doesn't look like a reformation. MaxSem 20:59, 8 June 2007 (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 have spent months cleaning up after this guy's endless sockpuppets and the mess they create. He was at it again just this evening with User:Catu and User:204.102.211.115, revert-warring and socking with an IP to back up the main sock account. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jacob Peters details a litany of sock abuse, as does Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jacob Peters. An unblock would not be justified. Moreschi ^Talk 21:02, 8 June 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked. I have become familiar with Wikipedia's policies and have learned to be more civil in edit disputes. I apologize for having used other user names.

Decline reason:

Clearly not, you were continuing to use sockpuppets abusively as recently as 2007-05-24. You have exhausted Wikipedia's patience and are no longer welcome here. — Yamla 19:14, 2 August 2007 (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.

Page protected

As a banned vandal, you are not entitled to regular unblock consideration. This page has been protected for six months due to your abuse of the unblock template. If you believe your ban was inappropriate, you can contest it by emailing a person on WP:ARBCOM. Given your long history of abuse, it is extremely unlikely that the ban would be overturned. You have exhausted Wikipedia's patience and are no longer welcome here. Wikipedia's invitation for anyone to edit does not apply to you. --Yamla 19:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I edited with the Jacob Peters account from Sept. 2006 to August 2007. I was banned indefinitely a long time ago in 2007 due to revert wars and the creation of other accounts to circumvent the ban. As a teenager at the time, I did not understand the rules of Wikipedia and did not take it very seriously. I treated it as a sort of message board on which to troll and fool around. The last time I used a sockpuppet was in 2009, and have been inactive from Wikipedia for almost two years. Since that time, my level of maturity has changed significantly, and I now understand the rules of Wikipedia. I have learned the need to compromise with other users instead of engaging in edit wars and that it is dishonest to create sockpuppets. I feel that I can make valuable contributions to the site, and would like to be given a chance to continue. I regret my behavior from 2006-07 that led to my being banned, which was immature and foolish on my part. Is it possible that I can go through a process for my ban to be lifted? Jacob Peters (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Three years is a long time; I'm unblocking, since I imagine you know full well (a) you'll be watched, and (b) the next bit of troublesome behavior will be the last. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mass killings uner Communist regimes

I see you started to edit this article. Since you have been inactive for a very long time, I believe my humble advice will be useful. The article you started to work with had recently been the battlefield of the very prolonged edit war that lead to indefinite block of one user. I anticipate that any significant change may lead to renewal of this war. Taking into account that the article is under very unusual restrictions (see the top of the article's talk page), which are not completely clear, it is highly likely that you may make some (unintentional) steps that will lead to your ban. In connection to that, I recommend you to be extremely cautious when you edit this article, and fully observe all formal procedures (which are rather confusing and complicated). For instance, it is highly recommended to supplement every edit with detailed edit summaries. In addition, editing of this concrete article without discussing proposed changes on the talk page may be considered as disruptive and lead to you block (which in your situation means indefinite ban).
Please, be patient and extremely cautious. Happy editing.
Sincerely,--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Jacob Peters. You have new messages at Paul Siebert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

I've requested a review of your unblock here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And blocked again

You were clearly lying in your unblock request, having been caught socking in mid June 2010 instead of what you claimed: "The last time I used a sockpuppet was in 2009, and have been inactive from Wikipedia for almost two years." Your edits since the unblock also give little hope that anything has changed since then. You can consider yourself community banned, with little chance of another unblock, but if you want one anyway, you are free to contact ArbCom. Fram (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is remarkable how Volunteer Marek basically gets to decide whether I will be blocked or not when he has a history of meatpuppetry, tag-teaming, and other violations as exposed with the whole Eastern European Mailing List scandal. Rather than his cries of "tendentious POV-pushing", the real reason why he does not want me to edit here is because I don't agree with his views. His little Mailing List gang targeted users specifically like me and Russavaia because of how our edits got in the way of their agenda. I have been unable to edit Wikipedia in a normal manner with my proper account since 2007, which has been more than the proportionate punishment. What process do I have to go through to get unblocked? I have shown with my edits through the years that I have made productive contributions, which renders claims by Marek about me pushing POV and being a vandal false. Jacob Peters (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

How to get yourself unblocked? Certainly not by ignoring the reason you are blocked and instead attacking another editor -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Certain users such as Crowl2009 and Yakooza2 were unjustly blocked even though these were NOT my accounts. They were blocked because certain editors who are staunchly opposed to me were able to persuade the administrators simply on the basis of the similarity of our views. Needless to say, having similar views is not a good enough reason to conclude that there has been a case of sock-puppeting. I admit that I used other sockpuppets, which was wrong of me, but the users above were not mine. And even if I last used an account in the spring of 2010, even though the investigations against me show that I edited in 2009, then that is still a year of inactivity on Wikipedia. As I explained above, I have been unable to edit in a normal manner since late 2006, which has been five years. I think that it would be fair to let me go through a probationary period to demonstrate that I am not on Wikipedia to vandalize or engage in other disruptive behavior.

As I explained above, the sole reason why my account was indefinitely blocked in the first place, way back in 2006-07, was that I did not understand Wikipedia's rules at the time, and treated the site as a place to fool around during boredom, similar to message boards. Had I known the rules, then I definitely would not have been blocked to begin with, because I would have avoided improper actions. I did not know at the time that sockpuppetry brought an indefinite ban and that there were rules against edit warring. Although what I did was in breach of the rules, I resorted to sockpuppetry because, again, I did not understand Wikipedia's rules, which allow the possibility of being unblocked. If anything, my use of sock-puppets was based on my misunderstanding that an indefinite block was an irreversible, permanent block. My actions in 2006-07 were childish at the time and showed a misunderstanding of the rules.

And I disagree accusations that I have been a "vandal" on Wikipedia. I have not done anything destructive like deleting entire articles or inserting obscenities, etc, but have made some helpful contributions. Although I was stubbornly involved in edit warring, this kind of thing goes on in Wikipedia on a regular basis, and is not sufficient grounds for a permanent unblock. My edits during the last day did not demonstrate edit-warring or any kind of disruption.

Concerning Volunteer Marek, my reaction against him above was because of the incivility he has shown toward me in the last day, particularly with his passionate appeals to certain administrators, which was completely inappropriate and in violation of the rules, because it is not within his competence to interfere with the tasks of the administrators. The admin who unblocked me, jpgordan, made the right decision, and it's unfortunate that the process was manipulated by certain editors who have no competence to engage in administrative decision-making. While I regret many of my actions on this site, I think Volunteer Marek has been completely unfair against me during the last day.

Again, what do I have to go through to be unblocked? I have not been able to use my normal account for the last 5 years. The reasons why I was blocked way back in 2006 were because I did not understand the rules and did not take the site seriously. My creation of sockpuppets was based on a misunderstanding of how an indefinite block = permanent block. I am not here to vandalize or disturb the site because I have made a lot of positive contributions to articles. Jacob Peters (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is a procedural decline based not on the merits of the block, but on the observation that community consensus at WP:ANI#Unblock of Jacob Peters so far unanimously supports your block and ban. Unless this changes, you can only be unblocked by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Sandstein 22:01, 13 May 2011 (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.

Since you're asking what you can do to be unblocked, and to follow up on Sandstein's last sentence, note:

"All requests or other material intended for the Ban Appeals Subcommittee should be sent to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Please see the ban appeals procedures before contacting the subcommittee."

From Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. That is what you must do if you wish to be unblocked. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think he can be unbanned by Arbcom if he was banned at ANI by the community. The way to go is Wikipedia:Standard offer. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User name

I should mention that if you are ever unblocked/unbanned, I will request you change your user name. "Jacob Peters", as a founder of the CHEKA, is not an appropriate user name for a cooperative project. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK