User talk:Jakeburtonz

Welcome!

Hi Jakeburtonz! I noticed your contributions to All In: Texas and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All in

Hello dear user

someone is gonna talk to you now

the reason i kept mentioning about you bring a new user

because you missed all those discussions Talk:All In: London (2024) 2600:4809:1130:4D00:CC7E:47CE:2A:577 (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anonymous user who's on their high horse. I'm well aware and responded to the report in kind! Someone is going to talk to you as well. Jakeburtonz (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize that you get banned if you do more than 3 edits on one page in less than 24 hours 2600:4809:1130:4D00:CC7E:47CE:2A:577 (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize that you get banned if you do more than 3 edits on one page in less than 24 hours? Jakeburtonz (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Somepinkdude (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well are they not doing the same? They're avoiding my question asking them to link me to an actual source that states wikipedia uses turnstile, instead of heresy. They have not reached out to me, and instead are editing my contributions. Jakeburtonz (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're literally still doing it. Jakeburtonz (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jakeburtonz. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. PhilKnight (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakeburtonz, I see you contested this on the SPI page, but please be aware you can also request an unblock through the procedure described in the block notice. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will, I'm just very busy at the moment. Jakeburtonz (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been banned yesterday for sockpuppeting. I will be honest, yes User:Willyjackiestar was me, but I promise you I did not have any ill intentions for using it. I have only used this account to edit on the article I was warring on twice as the other user that was warring was incessantly reverting the page when other contributions with the same stance as mine were made: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=All_In:_Texas&diff=prev&oldid=1315944802 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=All_In:_Texas&diff=prev&oldid=1316173749 I made this account merely because I forgot the username to the first account I made (which is this one) until I remembered it. I did not know owning multiple accounts to make edits was illegal, until it was pointed out to me. I reassure you, I had no ill intentions with it whatsoever considering I've only edited the relevant warred topic 1-2 times as I've mentioned. Having known the rules, I promise to never use this account again for illegitimate means. I have also used the other account to attempt to come to a resolution, hence me filing the report on a page that was being warred on constantly (especially during my conversation for a resolution with the other warring party, despite him editing whilst we were having our conversations and being warned.) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1316339258 I appreciate the fact that this incident was brought to light, as it has in turn made me extremely more knowledgeable with the rules, and will without a doubt try my hardest to adhere to them. I would also like to point out that the user that reported mentioned that all 69 of my contributions were editing the same page, which is incorrect. The majority of my contributions were on the other user's talk page to attempt to come to a resolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:4809:1130:4D00:CC7E:47CE:2A:577#c-2600:4809:1130:4D00:D48:E11A:F295:E67A-20251011012200-2600:4809:1130:4D00:D48:E11A:F295:E67A-20251011012000 "Why did you lie by saying the account wasn't yours" I'm sorry, I panicked because I did not understand the ramifications had I told the truth so I impulsively started to claim that account to not be mine. There should never be a reason to lie, but considering I haven't used this account to fuel this war I thought I had a good case of being off the hook, which was completely incorrect of me and I am ashamed of myself for that. I really hope you take my appeal to heart as I promise you, I will not sock puppet and will stick to this account, and I promise to never be put in this position ever again. Thank you. My other account is User:Willyjackiestar

Decline reason:

In line with the concerns raised by other admins below, I do not think it would be appropriate to unblock you at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:45, 17 October 2025 (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.

Hello Rosguill. I appreciate the response. I will prove to be a far better example for new users in the community to if I'm given a second chance. May you please re-consider this decision? I will re-assure everyone that I will not be put in this situation again. Thanks.

Given that you logged into each account to insist at your own sockpuppet investigation that you are two different people, this statement is pretty hard to swallow: I made this account merely because I forgot the username to the first account I made (which is this one) until I remembered it. I did not know owning multiple accounts to make edits was illegal, until it was pointed out to me. I reassure you, I had no ill intentions with it whatsoever considering I've only edited the relevant warred topic 1-2 times as I've mentioned.

Oh really? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned in the final paragraph that I panicked due to the consequences had the investigation been granted and I did not know what to do, that's why I tried to plead my case and impulsively started to claim it was mine, which I'm deeply disappointed with myself for doing. I was referring to using the second account to maliciously fuel the war in All In:Texas, which I reassure you wasn't my intention as I've only edited it twice and stopped afterwards. Regardless, I am absolutely ashamed for doing that, and I promise you I will heed this block very seriously and will never be put in a situation like this. I really apologize for the inconvenience, and apologize for my foolishness. Jakeburtonz (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two serious issues, I would urge you to address, by either providing a plausible explanation or more transparency. First, if you created Willyjackiestar because you forgot your username, it would have been trivially easy to jog your memory considering you both edited the same page and contributed to the talk page merely inches below Jackburtonz edits that you would know you obviously made.

Second, if you had no malicious intent then why did you address the 2600 IP in a manner that clearly suggested that you were a different person, not the same person who just forgot their user name? If I had been edit warring with you -- for the sake of argument of course -- and I saw Hi, I was the one who created the report on you 2600. The warring was getting out of hand, either discuss or stop, I would not believe that you were the same person I was arguing with.

As an uninvolved editor, my advice to you is to be fully transparent. Even if telling the whole, unembellished tale would make your actions look worse, I would argue that up to a certain limit, being fully honest, with slightly worse conduct, is better than half-truths about slightly less poor conduct. Best of luck to you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Second of all i have only edited this page twice whereas you people have edited over 10 times, which is even worse than the last quote. Someone who forgot their user name and registered a new one in good faith would not have written this sentence; again, it looks to me very deceptive, since even if you forgot your user name, you certainly wouldn't suddenly think you only edited this page twice. This is an example that appears that you deceptively were trying to give other editors the impression that you were a different, independent editor. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I can jump in here if possible. I reported this user as a potential sockpuppet seeing obvious related editing patterns per WP:DUCK. When I inferred that I suspected this user was a sockpuppet maliciously abusing multiple accounts I was called "disingenuous" and the user argued that it was me who was uncivil. Meaning, if this all was a mistake why did this user vigorously defend themselves against my suspicion? That leads me to believe this user was aware of what a sockpuppet is and that it's wrong. In the same conversation there is active denial of being a sockpuppet, leading me to the aforementioned conclusions. Lemonademan22 (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, I did not know owning a sockpuppet was illegal until I was told, because since this is a website open to the public, I was under the impression that owning two accounts would not be illegal. I very recently got into wikipedia so I did not familiarize myself with the rules since they're not readily available as there are multiple of them. When I was told it was wrong, I started to panic and tried to get off the hook because I did not know the ramifications had the investigation gone though, which again I admitted is shameful and wrong.

I called you disingenuous because we were asked to resolve this dispute, and the first thing you did was accuse me of sockpuppetering rather than try to come to a conclusion. Instead of trying to deescalate, you accused me of such right off the bat.

I also did not abuse the account, as I did not engage into that war with that account constantly to fuel this war and only edited twice. I wanted to come to a resolution which is why I made the report with the other account, and not the one I'm using. I was hopeful that maybe filing a report with another account would help with coming to a resolution.

Now that I've been blocked, I have taken the time to familiarize myself with the rules and rest assured this will not happen again. Jakeburtonz (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

for the third paragraph, I am not saying that I'm not in the wrong, as I absolutely am and should not have edited with a second account now that I know it's illegal. I'm merely just stating that I did not intend to wage war with the second account. Jakeburtonz (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and I will absolutely abandon this second account if I'm given a second chance, and will never use any other account aside from this one , or be put in this situation. Jakeburtonz (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use the second account anyway because it's blocked and will remain blocked.

You also haven't addressed the disingenuous statement "I did not know owning a sockpuppet was illegal". You knew sockpuppetry was prohibited from the moment you looked at the sockpuppet investigation page. And yet, in spite of that, you doubled down, compounding the problem by using both accounts to protest on the investigation page itself that each was innocent.

The community places trust in each new user who creates an account, trust that the privilege of editing a highly public website with global reach will not be violated. When you violated that trust, you were blocked, and you have a high bar to cross now, to convince the community (especially administrators) that you are trustworthy after making statements that contradict your actions. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My conduct was extremely inappropriate, I agree. The reason I doubled down was because I panicked during that time as I did not know the ramifications had it been allowed. Again, it's completely incorrect of me to do that, but I was in a fight or flight mode and I am ashamed of myself for trying to contest it. Jakeburtonz (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I promise you. I have taken the time to read the rules and I will try my absolute hardest to adhere to the rules and be a great example of newcomers to this community. I apologize again for the inconveniences. Jakeburtonz (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am skeptical that anyone would be able to read all the rules in such a short time (see Wikipedia:List of policies). I've been here almost 20 years and even I don't know all the rules. But I get it, you likely read the documents linked in your block message (and if you didn't, then do so).

Currently your block has no expiration. Here's another thing that might interest you to read, not a rule or a guideline, but a practice that has been adopted by the community: Wikipedia:Standard offer. It's a way to be unblocked after six months.

Or, you can see how your appeal goes. It wouldn't be proper for me to unblock you because I am a somewhat WP:INVOLVED administrator. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I mean the general conduct rules. I just meant that I'm not going to repeat those offences and I will be a better person as I have familiarized with the rules attached and a few more like in Civil. Jakeburtonz (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppeting isn't illegal but it isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Additionally, I wasn't apart of the dispute between you and the IP, I was just an observer who noticed similarities per WP:DUCK as I've said before and also the large scale edit war was quite hard to not notice especially since I edit similar articles. Lemonademan22 (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Coffee, I appreciate your inputs and words of advice. The intention was that I did want to take the identity of another person, but I never wanted to fuel this war otherwise I would've edited the article numerous times. I was hoping if I maybe used that account to make a report as opposed to the one I used for warring, then maybe we'd be able to come to a resolution much easier considering the tensions were already high and having a 3rd party to the blind eye might aid in that.

As for your first issue you've brought up to me, I completely agree with you. This was my first day of editing in wikipedia altogether so it didn't dawn on me to check the "view history" section because I wasn't aware of this feature existing. I swear to god I'm telling the truth, and I know it may seem like I'm not being untruthful. Once I figured out the username, I completely abandoned that account and stayed on this account and reverted with just this one. The edit warring was getting uncontrollable, so I went and reverted one more time with the Willyjackiestar account, which I'm completely at fault for doing and should not have done that.

I'm trying to be as blunt as I can be, while also taking all the accountability I can get. Again, I appreciate you for wanting to leave your two cents CoffeeCrumbs, and helping out. Jakeburtonz (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]