User talk:J.Turner99

I would like to know why one of my recent edits was deleted please. Kind regards J.Turner99 (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

If you are referring to your last edit to Steven Crowder, it was reverted with the edit summary "you do not have consensus for this edit and you have said nothing on the talk page". The page edit history is open to viewing by all. If you feel that the edit was valid, please engage in talk page discussion. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the response but I was not referring to that. I mean deleted, not reverted. J.Turner99 (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You only have two deleted edits, one from August of 2020 and another from February 3rd of this year, which seems to be an arbitration case page that was created accidentally. 331dot (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. J.Turner99 (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Beyond Order; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Bilorv (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Since people often fail to read the standard warning above in full, let me remind you: you can be blocked for violating the three-revert rule, but you can also be blocked for edit warring even if you have not violated the three-revert rule. — Bilorv (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is J.Turner99. Thank you. — Bilorv (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Warning

Hi, J.Turner99. I'll be blunt. It is disruptive to edit war for the removal of a tag when the reasons for placing it have been substantiated, not to mention when multiple other editors agree as to its utility. Now, I consider Jordan Peterson (and many of his writings, including Beyond Order) to be covered under WP:AP2 even more so than WP:ARBBLP, due Peterson's influence on post-1992 American political discourse. Yes, even though the medium is largely psychology. Nonetheless. Honestly, I'm not familiar enough with your editing at this time to know whether to view this as an WP:ACDS matter or just a straight-up WP:DE one. But, regardless, you need to stop or you risk imminent sanctions of some form or another. El_C 21:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I admire your commitment to neutrality, and appreciate the warning. I have had the privledge of encountering two highly competent administrators in the past week: yourself and User:Ritchie333. Thank you for being candid. J.Turner99 (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Anytime, J.Turner99. Glad my message resonated. And thank you for the kind words. El_C 23:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

It would have been nice if it resonated more; here you declared your intent to revert material contested by two separate editors as unnecessary marketing puffery. It is good to see you in that diff remove (and by implication, retract) your earlier accusation that myself and Acousmana are editing to push a "narrative," but I'd suggest you should avoid even thinking about such accusations in the future unless you have actual, serious evidence to substantiate your claim. Comment on content, not contributors. You will note that while I have disagreed with your edits, I have not made any claims about your personal beliefs or reasons for doing so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Did you just call me 'it'? I assure you, despite my robot-like intellect, I am, in fact, a home sapien. The comment you cite was removed just a minute after it was published, and I never meant to publish it. Please be assured, the comment was not an accusation, but a question. J.Turner99 (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The user's comment mentions "it" three times, none of which are a pronoun, and it is hard to see how their usage could be mistaken as such. — Bilorv (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bilorv, I came here to drop a note to J.Turner99, but started reading (not always a good idea). I'm just enough of a pedant to feel the overwhelming need to point out that it is always used as a pronoun (except, I suppose, in unusual meta-conversations like this one, where we're talking about it itself). I think you mean that it's not being used as a personal pronoun. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Yeah, I think that's what I meant. I still maintain I did not read as it was intended to be. J.Turner99 (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, Girth Summit, for the information. Theory of grammar is one of my weaker areas (I know whether something's wrong but not why). Though I don't think anyone misunderstood my intent, I'll specify "personal pronoun" in future. — Bilorv (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: "It would have been nice if it resonated more." In hindsight, there's two ways to read that. I may have got the wrong end of the stick. J.Turner99 (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

There is only one way to read "it resonated" in a comment immediately follows Glad my message resonated! --JBL (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned from editing or discussing anything to do with the post-1992 American politics topic area (WP:AP2) for 6 months, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned per a complaint at ANI (permanent link). J.Turner99, I'm not sure whether you're engaging in provocations deliberately, and frankly, it doesn't really matter in so far that it is disruptive. Your blasé attitude to having violated WP:3RR, and your seeming intention to continue violating it (diff), or your bizarre response to another admin (Black Kite) about that (diff). Or your strange "award" to Bilorv. Or the equally weird (and patently false) "it" accusation against NorthBySouthBaranof (diff). Even your extremely terse response at the ANI report inspires little confidence (diff). It's all just too much, so I think a not insignificant break from this fraught topic area is called for. Therefore, I have applied the above sanction to you with immediate effect.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBAP2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  El_C 02:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

RE: "Hello"

Hello @El C:, I don't understand why you topic banned me. I made sure not to make any edits on any main space page when the case was still underway. Also I strongly diagree with a period of six months, I was expecting a harsh punishment to be one week at most, given I have never been blocked in anyway before.

I also don't understand many of the reasons you cite reason to block me are from before the warning, not after.

The award to Bilorv was a genuine award because they insured I did not violate redirect when I did not understand what a redirect was. It was a thank you for the guidance.

The "it" comment was a misuderstanding. "It would have been nice if it resonated more." In hindsight, there's two ways to read that. I may have got the wrong end of the stick. I read it again and see that the user meant something else. I retract my comment.

I don't see how many response on the noticeboard is extremely terse. It was not intended that way. I was trying to fix things. I did not want anymore conflict so I kept it short.

The main thing is: you warned me: "you need to stop". I did just that. I followed your request. I did not edit on any mainspace page whatsoever. J.Turner99 (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Except, as I outline above, you didn't try to deescalate after the warning, as would have been expected; plus, a closer look revealed additional troubling conduct on your part. All of it combined has convinced me that an AP2 sanction is warranted. Because, mainspace or not, there are simply too many red flags. And, no, there isn't two ways to read "it resonates". A message resonates, a person does not (except maybe in a new age vibrational sense, which clearly wasn't the context here). And, again, to a passing observer, that award to Bilorv was a needless provocation. There's really no way to tell that you agree with them about the redirect after edit warring over it. It's too "haha" strange, at the very least. Beyond all of these individual instances, I don't understand what you thought would happen by continuing to act in a combative way, passive-aggressively and otherwise, after my warning to you. I expected a more conciliatory approach —which doesn't mean you have to forfeit you position (you could have launched a dispute resolution request, like a Request for comment— but, instead, we got the opposite. El_C 13:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I do not appreciate you assuming bad faith. I read it as though the 'it' was referring to myself, not a message, obviously I was wrong. I do not care if anyone tells me there is only one way to read it; because I read it another way. I request you reconsider please because 6 months is a very long time and frankly you might as well ban me. This has left a sour taste in my mouth and I am certainly considering retiring from wikipedia, therefore being counter-intuitive to the block. All my edits you cite were efforts to resolve and make amends. J.Turner99 (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather not get sidetracked over this or that individual incident. Three (4?) experienced users (who combined have made hundreds of thousands of edits) have recommended an AP2 ban as an effective remedy for your disruption, an assessment which I have concurred with. El_C 14:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: All of them were invloved editors. Will you not reconsider? J.Turner99 (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

J.Turner99, please review WP:INDENT. Anyway, them being involved does not disqualify their interpretation from still having merit. My assessment as an uninvolved admin is that it did. Reconsider on what basis? You haven't really addressed several of my salient points so as to prompt me to do so. Especially, about your failure to deescalate after my warning to you, which raised concerns of imminent disruption not being unlikely. El_C 14:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Is this indent right? Most of your salient points are valid. So I am sorry for those. But please note, I had no malicious intention. I will take on what much of what you've said, and if you lift this block, and if I were to commit one of these offences again, I would not object to a site-wide indefinite block. Also I should mention I had no idea dispute resolution request or Request for comment was a thing. I know that's not an excuse, but it's important you know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:

An indent increases in the course of a discussion thread, like everything else above. Anyway, to clarify, you are not blocked, but are topic banned from the WP:AP2 topic area. You are welcome to contribute to the millions of pages that do not fall under its purview. And WP:DR was linked for you yesterday, so you were expected to familiarize yourself with it, if only just by reviewing its opening paragraph. Finally, I attribute no malice at this juncture, because, not to be acerbic, but I am not telepathic. El_C 15:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Does this mean you will remove the topic ban? Given I have apologised and promised to do better? J.Turner99 (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it means that you should start to learn about best editing practices outside of such a fraught topic area. Say you are able to do so quicker than expected, like, for example, in 2 months instead of the allotted six, then that will surly increase the chances of a successful early appeal. El_C 17:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: My understanding was that these topic bans were a protective measure? You said "Reconsider on what basis? You haven't really addressed several of my salient points so as to prompt me to do so." I have now addressed your complaints, and you have not yet reconsidered. J.Turner99 (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

J.Turner99, you have not yet addressed the reasons that other editors such as myself gave for sanctions of some kind being necessary. For instance, you have not explained why you violated 3RR despite being given multiple clear warnings, nor what measures you will take to avoid doing so in future, or described your newfound understanding of edit warring so that we can be sure you will avoid edit warring. You have not yet demonstrated that you understand you have made many spurious requests against other users (such as sockpuppetry) and explained what you have learned from other users giving you advice on this topic. You have not yet described in what way you would "do better", and it is not clear to me that you understand why myself, Cassiopeia, Sro23 and JayBeeEll have made the comments that we have and how you have learned from these comments. If you do not wish to substantively address these points in turn then I would suggest that you stop digging because from my experience there is a less than 0% chance that repeatedly asking an admin, "can you remove the sanction? How about now? How about now?" will ever succeed (and by "less than 0% chance" I mean that it will never lead to the sanction's removal but can lead to additional sanctions). — Bilorv (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I regret most of what you just mentioned. Although I have not said ""can you remove the sanction? How about now? How about now?" I feel I deserve a second chance. J.Turner99 (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

From my perspective, I gave you a second chance, then a third, then a fourth, and then a fifth, and then started an ANI discussion and in the research process found I wasn't the only person handing out chance upon chance to you. "I regret most of what you just mentioned" is not an explanation in your own words of what you did wrong and what measures you will take to avoid such behavior in future (which is needed because without this crucial step what often happens is someone is unbanned, does the same thing again immediately, and then says "but it was different this time!" because they didn't actually understand what they did wrong). — Bilorv (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: All I can do is say I have no intention of doing it again. There is no way for me to prove this with out a topic unblock. I now understand that the 3RR rule is not an entilement to revert. I also understand I shoud've of listened to warnings. I was foolish and I did not. J.Turner99 (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

J.Turner99, you have the option of immediately appealing, for example, by using the arbitration enforcement appeals template. Maybe it will go your way, though I tend to doubt it. Otherwise, I don't really have much to add at this time to what I had already said. El_C 18:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C:I don't understand why I am not allowed to be "discussing anything to do with post-1992 American politics"? J.Turner99 (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That's just the general design of a WP:BROADLY WP:TBAN, which I did not see a reason to otherwise soften. El_C 15:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Why don't you? I don't see a reason why I can't discuss and propose edits? J.Turner99 (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, not to state the obvious, but I simply saw no utility in doing so in light of your conduct during AP2 discussions, as well. In any case, my view is that this ought to have been a matter for you to have raised in your appeal. El_C 15:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: This seems to violate multiple freedom of speech and expression laws, both American and EU. What was wrong with my appeal? J.Turner99 (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It does not. This is a private website that is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. Freedom of speech and expression is not a guarantee on Wikipedia, per the WP:NOTFREESPEECH policy. You are welcome to join or found your own website that would better reflect these values, as you perceive them to be. The law is on your side there. But there is no such legal requirement to do so on a private website. In fact, you could be seen to be infringing on that website's own autonomy by forcing it to relinquish its powers to moderate its content as it (in this case, the Wikipedia community) sees fit. Regardless, it obviously isn't a thing. El_C 15:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: The website can be accessed by any member of the public and is funded entirely by public money. I don't see what grounds you have to block me from discussing american politics? J.Turner99 (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

On the grounds of the mandate extended to the me by both the community (WP:RFA) and Arbitration Committee (WP:ACDS). And also indirectly from the Foundation itself for whom Wikipedia is its private property. It also being a not-for-profit entity does not diminish such rights on the Foundation's part (or the manner in which it sees fit to delegate these to its volunteer projects acting autonomously). The imperatives of being publicly-accessible, does not magically turn Wikipedia into a public utility, legally speaking. Again, that argument, in my view, isn't something for which you are likely to find much (if any) legal traction. El_C 16:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Where does it say you have the right to violate freedom of speech laws? J.Turner99 (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a publisher, or a platform? J.Turner99 (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

J.Turner99, I have nothing further to add at this time. Please do not ping me to your talk page again. Thanks. El_C 16:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

J.Turner99, do I even need to ask you to also not do so on my own talk page? Apparently so. El_C 17:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal

J.Turner99, your arbitration enforcement action appeal has been declined at Special:Permalink/1011673584 § Arbitration enforcement action appeal by J.Turner99. Please review the policy against edit warring and the guide to dispute resolution, which outline some of the expectations for editing Wikipedia articles in controversial topic areas. Reviewers of the appeal recommend participating in less controversial topic areas for the remaining duration of the topic ban. — Newslinger talk 05:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Groundhog Day all over again

J.Turner99, if you're reading something on this page, and feel like you've passed that way before, it's because certain portions of the text in this section are repeated four times. I'm not going to go figure out what happened for you, but just wanted to let you know that it is the case. For example: if you search-on-page for the token "16:13, 12 March 2021" you will find that it occurs in four different places, preceded by the same content each time. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I've BOLDly deleted the repetitions, because I was getting dizzy trying to read the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/J.Turner99

The page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/J.Turner99 has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

there might not be a CSD criteria that applies, but this will just be a big timesink

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

331dot, I think there is a general consensus that obvious NOTNOW RfAs (which this is) can be deleted per WP:G6.

J.Turner99, please read Wikipedia:Adminship is not for new users immediately Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I was sure to look at all the relevant articles before, to insure I did not get banned for this, but thank you. J.Turner99 (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

To cut a very long story short, I have nominated over 35 candidates for RfA and assessed around 200, and I can say with some confidence that you will probably never be an administrator. Indeed, I would say you are far more likely to wind up blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

What are you really doing here?

In the period of 48 hours, you've edit warred with an admin at WP:BN, been ap2 banned, filed an utterly frivolous ban appeal and now filed a completely tone deaf and pointless RFA despite not meeting a single criteria for adminship. What is it that you actually intend to do on Wikipedia? CUPIDICAE💕 20:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Thank you for the question. This would've made an excellent question for RFA. I intend to fix it. I intend to build on it. I intend to imporve it. What just occured proves my point; admins are not held accountable enough and have too much power. J.Turner99 (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to build and improve many parts of it. You're just not welcome to build specific parts of it, because you've demonstrated that your inexperience and overzealousness makes you a net negative in that area. Please, go find some other area to edit. Learn how to interact with other editors. Learn what consensus means and how to build it. Learn how to find and use reliable sources. Pounding your head into this particular wall is going to get you precisely nowhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

And I'd like to offer an example - Springee and I have disagreed on a number of editorial issues in the past, and no doubt will disagree on others in the future. But our disagreements have never become personal, and that offers the opportunity to be productive and constructive. So when an issue arose at the Tim Pool article, both Springee and I aligned on the same axis - that Wikipedia articles should stick to high-quality sources and avoid tabloidy gossip, and as a result, reject proposed additions which don't seem to meet these criteria. This isn't about ideological lines or freedom of speech or whatever - it's about building and maintaining a free-content encyclopedia which fairly, accurately, and as neutrally as possible describes the state of the world. We will all disagree at times on what those words mean and where the lines are to be drawn - but there are proper ways to have that disagreement, and there are improper ones. I encourage you to take some time to learn how Wikipedia works, so that you can work out those disagreements in a civil and proper manner. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to give you some different advice: if you want to complain about admins, try some third-party site. I'm not going to link to any of them but they're not hard to find. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki:Why do you advise that? J.Turner99 (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Hi. I don't know you at all, and I haven't looked under any stones to find out why you were topic banned; please let me give you some advice as an entirely uninvolved administrator. You have been sanctioned in a manner which, on the face of it, looks entirely within policy. Several admins have reviewed the action, and have told you that they see no issue with it. You raised a thread at WP:BN, which was the wrong venue and wasted people's time; you have attempted to create an RfA, which was doomed to failure, and since you were unable to do it successfully yourself you requested assistance from volunteers, wasting more people's time. This is disruptive editing: if you persist with it, you will be blocked from editing entirely as a time-sink.

I stand by the advice I gave you earlier - go for a walk, listen to some music, go do something enjoyable and chill out. If you want to keep editing, do it in one of the many, many areas that you aren't topic banned from. If you persist with this campaign to complain about your Tban, all you will achieve is getting your account blocked completely from the project. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 20:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:17, 12 March 2021 (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).

J.Turner99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

How long for and why? J.Turner99 (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You really should stop and try to understand why these things happened to you in the last few days. It is pretty clear to everybody except you that what you are doing is not acceptable. May be when you understand this as well you will be able to write a reasonable unblock request. For the time being, I would suggest to take a break.Ymblanter (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2021 (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.

The block is indefinite, and it is for your ongoing pattern of disruption, in particular your recent strange behavior regarding RfA, disregarding the advice of several more experienced editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Multiple admins decided not to block me and instead decided to warn me. J.Turner99 (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This is unreasonable, in particular the time length. Although many editors disagree with many of my actions, I feel they would agree with me on this. J.Turner99 (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It's fine and if you don't take the hint and shut up, I think talk page removal will be next. Nick (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

. . . and then the time comes for a block. Now is that time. You may want to reformulate your unblock request. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Nick That civility is not fit for an admin. J.Turner99 (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

J.Turner99, as said on the Helpdesk Page - calm down and reflect your behaviour and in a few days you can decide for yourself if you want to collaborate in the future in a productive way contrary to the disruptive way. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Let me only say this: My first and only block was also indefinite :) and the admin was absolutely right to do so, I had to learn a lot, in a few days or eventually weeks you hopefully will see that your block was also justified. Let me put it that way - I would have blocked you, too. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford:Well I respect your opinion, but I can't see a block log for you? Was it another account? J.Turner99 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

J.Turner99, no it was not. I was blocked last year. My behaviour was totally far away from acceptable and although I was angry on the day I was blocked, later I absolutely understood their acting and with my knowledge today I would have blocked myself, honestly! There are several experienced editors and even Sysop+Stewards which had a block here.

Take a deep breath, read what Floquenbeam wrote you and take a break of a few days! Do under no circumstances a new Unblock Request like the last one (and never again a RfA after MUCH mooooreeee experience, I have almost 50,000 edits, spending several hours daily here but in no way I would say that I am ready for an RfA. We have editors here with 400,000 edits, here for over a decade, which do not feel fit for a RfA, just that you get an idea.) We have all lots of tasks here, there is plenty of work and right now you are wasting our time and yours. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2021 (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).

J.Turner99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

After my RfA, perhaps half a dozen admins decided to not block me, but rather warn me, including @331dot: who made the choice not to block me but warn me, just minutes before I was blocked by a random admin. @Xeno: I know I am not supposed to ping you, but how else do I report Nick? Their multiple uncivil comments (one on here and one on Wikipedia:Help desk) are not befitting of an admin and have made me feel uncomfortable, something an admin should not be doing, I feel you are a highly reasonable editor, and would agree with me that this uncivilised speech is not something an admin should engage in. I respectfully request this admin to seize contact with me. @CommanderWaterford:, I wish this was the case, but this is my first block and it is indefinite – This is unreasonable, in particular the time length and although many editors disagree with many of my actions, I feel they would agree with me on this. This may be the last time I am able to speak, before a tyrant admin removes my talk page access. So I will say this: I was always just trying to make Wikipedia better. J.Turner99 (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is not an actual unblock request. Please read WP:GAB before the next one. This is important, because I won't remove talk page access now, but another unblock request that is not on point will likely result in that. I can assure you, contrary to your guess above, a very large majority of editors agree with Cullen on this. One thing that you could do that might help focus your mind: look at the number of people giving you advice here, and at the help desk. Try to estimate how many person-hours you're taking up, from people who are trying to help you. So far, none of the people who have posted here have disagreed with this block. You're down to your last 3% of goodwill here. Don't waste it. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2021 (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.

(ec) You realize that an admin will review this, right? "Tyrant admin" is a personal attack and does not help you. My refraining from unblocking you was not permanent, and I would have done so had Cullen328 not acted. Do you understand that this not a democracy? Wikipedia is a private entity that does not offer due process or fair trials or jury trials or free speech- just as you don't in your home. This does not mean we are not fair- hence this very appeal is possible- but you need to change your mindset. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec) You do realise I could have blocked you, instead I gave a blunt but fair assessment of your RfA, in the hope that it might have made you realise that your RfA wasn't good and shouldn't be reposted on Wikipedia, similarly, you do realise I can remove your talk page access, instead I have suggested before (and I suggest again) that you shut up and listen to what you're being told. If you're not going to listen to my advice and instead spend your time bitching about me rather that the self-reflection you need if you're actually going to be unblocked, then fine, but don't be surprised if you're not unblocked any time soon. Nick (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I have removed talk page access. This discussion is going nowhere.-gadfium 22:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

UTRS #41316 decline

UTRS appeal #41316 has been declined.

I am declining your unblock request 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 either the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or that 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks for more information. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, to be young again

Hi J.Turner99. I've thought for the last few days that you might be a child editor, because you remind me of myself when I was a child editor. I didn't say it until now lest it was taken as an attack, but your behavior today has made much more certain that I am correct.

Like with me when I was a bit younger, every piece of constructive advice bounces off you, because your eagerness and determination to do something (create this page, get this ban removed, start a request for adminship) makes you blind to the idea that your goal itself could be the mistake. Whether it's one person who suggests your goal is wrong or one hundred makes no difference to whether you will try it—demonstrably, from your actions today. It may seem that the world is against you, but you really need to ask: could all these very smart and hard-working people (many of whom have written the articles you read every day on Wikipedia) be wrong? Every single one? If the treatment shown to me was against the law, would I be the first person to ever point this out and would Wikipedia's rules have been the way they are for upwards of 15 years? Or could it be me that was wrong with my base assumptions? Could there be a reason I haven't even thought of, something to do with me?

You need to show regret before you take an action, and then not do the action. Then it's even called "foresight" rather than "regret" and you don't need to apologize for it. In a few years (not tomorrow, next week, but a few years) when you look back on your actions here and cringe at yourself, perhaps you'll re-read the following: "indefinite block" does not mean "infinite block". But for the time being, Wikipedia is not the home for you. Overeager children can grow into brilliant and successful adults. Best of luck in your off-Wikipedia adventures in the meantime. — Bilorv (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)