User talk:John Not Real Name

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).

John Not Real Name (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I guess this will fail but the only reason I can give is to justify my actions. In his request he stated that I did not address Dianaa's requests or whatever but there was no attempt at arbitration (Yes, there was a talk page and all it was is a re-statement of Dianaa's position. I was actually willing to compromise if all additional explanation was deleted from that section but he never offered that.). Furthermore the reasoning for the reversions is nonsensical. I cited information and the issue was that it was not prose? Is that policy or just aesthetics? Furthermore how is what he did not edit-warring as if you add Dianaa's? Oh right no questions. Well whatever, I hope you can see that I was willing to compromise. I should add that Dianaa actually reverted my quotes in multiple articles (Relevant to both.). I Pray you are well. God Bless You.John Not Real Name (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for violating WP:3RR but don't mention this in your unblock request. Please only talk about your actions; those of other editors are not relevant to your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 14:55, 18 February 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.

(Non-administrator comment) Hi @John Not Real Name:, before you try again I've got a few tips that should help.

Firstly, read WP:NOTTHEM. This explains why it's a bad idea to discuss the actions of other editors in your own appeal.

Secondly, read WP:Guide to appealing blocks - this has helped countless editors understand what admins are looking for in an unblock appeal.

Finally, remember that blocks are only made to prevent disruption, therefore you need to show that you understand why you were blocked and know exactly how to act if you're faced with the same situation in future. Read through the guidelines that were cited as a reason for you being blocked, then apply them to your own situation. Why were your actions problematic? What should you have done instead? Try to show this thought process in your appeal, so the admins can see that you're serious about doing better.

Admins don't want justification, they're looking for development and change. If you can show that, you're well on the road to a successful appeal. Good luck! Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue-Sonnet: Why do you coach so many blocked users on your views on how to write "a successful appeal"? This block, as many others you've commented on, has nothing to do with you. With fewer than 1000 edits, most of which have been in this year and last, it seems an odd thing to spend so much time doing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 Apologies, you can see in my talk page that I've had a lot of positive feedback from several admins & other editors, I've helped several blocked editors to understand why they were blocked and they were able to successfully appeal.

I've always been clear that I'm not an admin and stressed that if I'm causing a problem I'm happy to stop, or if my wording is poor I'm happy to change that too.

If you'd rather that I stop I'm happy to do so - I just saw that there was a backlog of block requests a while ago and wanted to see if I could help. I'd rather not cause problems for anyone so please let me know if I am. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue-Sonnet: I cannot speak for other administrators, but in my view it is neither an appropriate nor constructive use of your time.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a fairly new editor, I Thank You for informing me. Is there a way to arbitrate disputes? Some people on here are imbecilic but we are all equal after all. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{(Non-administrator comment) Hi @John Not Real Name, I'm sorry you were involved in the above, it must have been confusing. I've sought further advice and have decided I will carry on as I am for now.

That said, please don't attack other editors - even if you disagree with them or their actions - like you say we're all equal here. If you do, an admin will likely remove your talk page access because it's not acceptable here.

Whether or not you like the current policies, they're still in force and must be followed if you want to edit here. There are ways for editors to discuss and debate any policies that they feel need improvement, but that's something that must wait until your block is addressed. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My block has ended. Is there an arbitration process available? John Not Real Name (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? I am a new editor and I have basically been bullied into accepting a change by another editor. All that needs to occur is two people backing a change and you will lose as a result as you cannot edit-war. It is a stupid system. Why should I change my view, what makes the other person's view correct? Why should it be prose instead of an accurate quotation? John Not Real Name (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @John Not Real Name. When you have a disagreement with another editor we go to the relevant talk page and try to work it out. If agreement between the two (or more) editors in conflict can't be reached then we seek WP:CONSENSUS through open discussion. Please see WP:DR for additional tips on how to resolve disagreements. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for the links. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome John Not Real Name!

Hello John Not Real Name. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Ad Orientem, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:

Introduction to Wikipedia

The five pillars of Wikipedia

Editing tutorial

How to edit a page

Simplified Manual of Style

The basics of Wikicode

How to develop an article

How to create an article

Help pages

What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:

Do be bold

Do assume good faith

Do be civil

Do keep cool!

Do maintain a neutral point of view

Don't spam

Don't infringe copyright

Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest

Don't commit vandalism

Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:

Ask a question

or you can:

Get help at the Teahouse

or even:

Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{Help me}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:

Fight vandalism

Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome

Help contribute to articles

Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you

Help design new templates

Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost

Translate articles from Wikipedias in other languages

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Please remember to:

Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

Sincerely, Ad Orientem (talk) (Leave me a message) 19:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics information

You have recently made edits related to the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This is a standard message to inform you that the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Bogazicili (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User conduct dispute

This is pursuant to resolving user conduct disputes.

You seem to think Edit-wars are thrice not twice [1]. This is incorrect, see Wikipedia:Edit warring.

You are also adding content without any sources. These figures do not discriminate based on perpetrator or reason however and includes the ... [2] part does not have any sources and seem WP:OR. If you want to add something about Kurds, find what the sources in text say about them. Or find another source and add it without WP:OR.

Your lengthy quotes in text in second paragraph is also probably against MOS:QUOTE.

Per WP:ONUS, you need to gain consensus before adding text. You can try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, such as Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Bogazicili (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Bogazicili (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments on your behavior. here you say :::::::::I did not do original research!!! The text mentions the population-decline of muslim Turks and Kurds and I merely pointed out that it would include the persecution of Kurds by the ottoman government since there is no indication of perpetrator (In fact the population-decline figure does not specify if they were all murdered.) or the reason for the same.. That is, indeed, a form of original research - it's called synthesis. When using a source, we use what the source says - we do not infer, interpret, or "point out" things that the source does not mention. Further there, as has been pointed out to you above, the three-revert rule refers to edit-warring, but while 3RR is a bright line, edit wars can involve fewer than three reverts (even one per day, if it is over a period of time). Further, this is not acceptable - do not put personal commentary, even hidden, in articles. If there is a concern about content or sources, bring it up on the article talk page. Finally, Can you not read? [3] and Some people on here are imbecilic [4] are violations of [[WP:CIVIL|Wikipedia's civility policy] - discuss content, do not cast aspersions on other editors. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then by that logic we cannot use that information to infer anything about who killed muslims even if they were Christian or not (Which is what we are doing if we leave it unclarified.). The text only mentions that muslim population decline including military was nearly 2,000,000. I can even copy and paste the whole section if you want but there is no indication who did anything. The only indication is ottoman actions against Armenians. Furthermore I did cite the text here: "Moreover, the Armenian population of Anatolia declined from close to 1.5 million to less than 100,000 as a result of the deportation of most Armenians to the Syrian desert by the Young Turk government in 1915. Many Armenians as well as Muslims were massacred during this process, even more died of hunger and disease, and the rest of the Armenians fled Anatolia."-The Ottoman economy in World War I (2005) By Şevket Pamuk, page 131-132 What @Bogazicili wrote was that I was speculating who perpetrated these massacres and my point is that if I do not give the proviso we are asserting all muslim deaths in the period were by Christians which is at least equally wrong.

For example Kurds were known to have helped Armenians: "Whereas many Kurdish tribes joined the Young Turks, some Kurdish groups like the Alevis from Dersim (today Tunceli) decided to oppose the government and gave refuge to Armenians."-Late Ottoman genocides: the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and Young Turkish population and extermination policies—introduction (2008) By Dominik J. Schaller and Jürgen Zimmerer, page 9 In their citation they write: "The Kurds of the Dersim had to pay a high price for their courage. Riggs noted in his report: “One distressing incident which followed the uprising of the Kurds in the Dersim was the effort on the part of the Turkish government to terrorize those Kurds by treating them as they had treaded the Armenians.”"-Late Ottoman genocides: the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and Young Turkish population and extermination policies—introduction (2008) By Dominik J. Schaller and Jürgen Zimmerer, page 12 Clearly this shows that muslim Kurds with Armenians were being killed by ottoman forces hence the original quote (I think treaded should be treated. My version. You can check it out yourself if you so wish.). All of this is leaving aside the fact that it is known that Kurds were deported and killed by the ottoman Government in this time period. The Wikipedia page is here: ( Background and Ottoman deportations (1916) ).

Now since the text, which if you so wish I can quote at length (I mean from The Ottoman economy in World War I (2005) By Şevket Pamuk.), gives no mention of whose actions were involved (Unlike for example the above quote where the Young Turk government is explicitly mentioned.) it would include the actions against Kurds which I contend is explicitly mentioned anyway (The bit I highlighted in bold above.).

I think @Bogazicili already deleted those invisible comments. I never deleted any source (Unless upon reading it the content was not about the topic at hand.) but I do have issues with the reliability of some of them. There are armenian-genocide denying Turkish nationalist blogs.

Fine. I apologise for those comments. Am I able to retract them? John Not Real Name (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are unreliable, you can delete them when you see them. I didn't write the vast majority of article and I don't have the time to fix everything.

As for your content changes, instead of edit warring, you can proceed to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, such as Wikipedia:Third opinion, or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.

If you are not sure about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, you can ask help in WP:Teahouse, WP:Help desk. Or you can request WP:Mentorship Bogazicili (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about the information on the Wikipedia page? I did not either.

Well, I was about to but then this popped up. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent ping

Hello JNRN and thanks for the recent ping. Unfortunately my time is very limited at the moment (I also have to go through my watchlist which I haven't checked in some days) and I find it hard to follow the relevant discussions in order to contribute properly. I see that EducatedRedneck has responded to your call for a third opinion, and hopefully you are now close to reaching a consensus on the issues discussed. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay but Thank You for the message. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly changing content—in a back-and-forth fashion—back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. The best practice at this stage is to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand, not to engage in edit-warring. Wikipedia provides a page that details how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. veko. (user | talk | contribs) 20:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the warning above states, I have the option to block you for edit warring even if you do not violate the three-revert rule, but I have opted not to do so yet. Please discuss on the article talk page or use the usual dispute resolution channels. Curbon7 (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Veko is dealing with it. John Not Real Name (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeon

You really need to read wp:bludgeon, that talk pages is a mess as you have to reply to every post it seems. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only reply once when someone replies to me or the conversation is relevant to me. I did not reply to the other guy's edit and sent it to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Please weigh in on the Talk:Rape in Islamic law#Dispute resolution (third opinion) for some arbitration. John Not Real Name (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minor thing

I was about to make a reply at [5] when you removed it, so I'll make it here instead: You could consider WP:APPNOTE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry. I blanked it because no-one was replying. The other guy who got involved basically stated I am not reading all that...which he could have done by moving on but okay. I guess I could have been more patient but I am honestly quite ill-disposed towards Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution systems. I hope this will solve something. The only thing I will write is that if the matter goes to a Request for Comment (A device I detest.) please get involved. Last time I did it no-one else got involved and it was dropped and I have to wait for half a year! John Not Real Name (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Heck no, I'm not reading that." is my reaction to Talk:Rape_in_Islamic_law#Dispute_resolution_(third_opinion) as well, and I think that applies to most curious peekers. It could maybe help if someone wrote a "Summary of the discussion so far", but there is no guarantee.

Another way to try for some kind of "closure" is WP:CR. And the closer could very well close it as "no consensus". But we'll see what happens at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Rape_in_Islamic_law. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic, but you might find this article intersting: "Consensus was reached. The lines were added back. Approximately 7,000 words of deliberation to settle, for a time, three sentences. This was Wikipedia’s process working as intended." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Rape in Islamic law. 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. M.Bitton (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read what I wrote in the talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you not reading this: ( Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Third statement by moderator (Rape in Islamic law) )? I have been permitted to include it by the moderator. He allowed it. You cannot not include it because of no consensus. That is why I went there. John Not Real Name (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute Resolution doesn't have the ability to force content into articles. Its purpose and its only power is to get editors to agree to do something. The moderator said something that could be taken as support, yes, but there are editors at the article page itself who object. WP:ONUS still applies. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is in any case not what is happening. We are seeing if they have an objection. As it stands the other guy in the dispute is not showing up. I think he was seeing if there was an issue. John Not Real Name (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant (you wait until they agree with you or settle for something else). What about the editor that you didn't invite to that DR? M.Bitton (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well he is the moderator so I just followed what he asked me to do. I will try to get him involved. I forgot about him. John Not Real Name (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are not. I was referring to "Slatersteven" (that you didn't invite to that DR). M.Bitton (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are who? I know. I am going to notify him. John Not Real Name (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DRN: [Dispute resolution] is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions. A revert, whatever the edit summary says, is a de facto objection. Even if it weren't, the moderator in DRN said, I will then leave this case open for a few days to see if the change is reverted. That seems to suggest that the change being reverted is an acceptable outcome, not one to edit war over. I strongly suggest you self-revert, as I don't see "following DR suggestions" in the list of WP:3RRNO exemptions. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I understood the situation to be:
The moderator in question wished to see if anyone had a content related objection to the inclusion of the text so he directed me to include the text. I had no issue if it was reverted over content. I mean this. I would have immediately gone back to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

Then the above reverted it over a lack of consensus.

I know there was a lack of consensus hence why I brought it to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

I was reverting under the impression the inclusion of the text was not a reversion. I saw it as an inclusion. I wrote as much in the edit summary.

John Not Real Name (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have an outstanding suggestion to both User:John Not Real Name and @M.Bitton:; by all means keep reverting each other because somewhere around the 38th revert in 30 minutes one of you will break the will of the other and you will WIN! That's what Wikipedia is allllll about; you have to win at all costs! So, do keep reverting. You score more points that way too! More seriously...wow, just wow. Both of you just aren't getting it. WP:3RR doesn't give you leave to do three reverts in 24 hours without fear of getting blocked. Edit warring is edit warring. BOTH of you are skating on very thin ice having both been blocked in the past for edit warring. It's obvious neither of you are learning from this. If it were me, I would have blocked both of you for an extended period for total failure to get the point and an obvious belief that edit warring will somehow win the day. You are disrupting the project. If either of you engages in such behavior again the next block will be quite long. Don't tempt fate. This ends. NOW. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear I was not reverting based on wanting the text to stay. I was reverting because I thought it should stay until someone had a content-based issue with the inclusion of the text as I was directed to do by the moderator. The above made a lack-of-consensus revert which is why I brought it to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard in the first place. I also did not think the first quote was a reversion. I thought I was including the text which is what I wrote in the edit summary itself. I have NO issue with a content-based reversion. Of course I submit to the ruling below. John Not Real Name (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is NO justification for engaging in edit warring, much less the rapid fire edit warring you were both engaging in. I don't care what your motivation is. Unless your reversions are specifically covered by WP:3RRNO, it is edit warring is wholly intolerable no matter your justification. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did not think I was edit-warring. I thought I was trying to get objections for the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Evidently I was wrong. John Not Real Name (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to bludgeon the point. I do want to make it clear what happened.

23 September 2025 23:47: You put the information in [6]. A minute later, you're reverted. [7]. At this point, you should have paused. Read WP:BRD. Live by it on this project.
23 September 2025 23:51: Three minutes after being reverted, you reinstate the information [8]. In the same minute, you're reverted [9].
23 September 2025 23:55: Four minutes later, you reinstate the information yet again. You note in the edit summary that reverting is happening, so you appear to be at least somewhat aware you're involved in a revert war [10]. A minute later, you're reverted.
23 September 2025 23:59: Another four minutes later, and you revert...indicating in the edit summary that it would be your third reversion, as if that is some magic number up to which you can continue to revert and not be causing a problem [11].

4 times in 12 minutes you attempted to place this information into the article. If you're not able to understand why this is a problem, I would strongly recommend you place yourself on at WP:0RR restriction. Just don't ever do a reversion again. Maybe it's not clear to you what reverting is. Maybe it's not clear to you that revert warring is a problem. To the rest of the project, it is. So, if you want to be on this project then adhering to a self imposed WP:0RR restriction is probably a good idea moving forward. Just don't undo anyone else's edits. Pretty simple. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point is merely that the information was not as important as seeing what objections there are to it but as I accepted I was wrong. Also I thought including the information the first time was not a reversion. Other editors indicate I am wrong so I accept that I am. John Not Real Name (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand what you mean. If you want to ask people why they object to something then ask them. There is no reason you need to edit war to seek feedback from other editors. Talk pages are intended for discussion including so they disputes can be resolved without edit warring rather than only as a way for editors to provide reasons for why they reverted after an edit war. Nil Einne (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:John_Not_Real_Name reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: ). Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Rape in Islamic law) for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is John Not Real Name and Islam-/sex-related articles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2025 (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).

John Not Real Name (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The issue at hand is my reverting the text. I want to begin by writing that I laboured under the impression I was not edit-warring. I thought I was being allowed by the moderator to have it up so that we can see objections based on content. I know there is a lack of consensus and I thought we were seeing if there was any content-based objections to take back to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard so I did not think this was an edit-war. I was reverting so that anyone else's content-based reversion would be visible and thence brought to the Noticeboard. The next problem is that I did not think I was breaking the three revert rule as I included the text as I was requested to do which I did not see as a reversion. I am clearly mistaken and for that I apologise. As for not doing it again, I definitely do not intend to repeat it as I did not intend to do it in the first place. I am Thankful that the decision was merciful.John Not Real Name (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please wait until the discussion at WP:ANI is complete. At the moment, there's a real chance you'll be subject to a WP:TOPICBAN on Islam-related articles going forward. Yamla (talk) 12:11, 24 September 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.

What is edit warring?

Hi John, I'm continuing the discussion from this thread. If you're not interested, or become bored of this conversation, please let me know so I can stop pestering you.

You asked why not have a set number of reverts. The problem is that sometimes it IS appropriate to revert. If someone removes longstanding content without stating a reason, one might revert two or even three times. But if I try to add a controversial statement about a living person and get reverted, I probably shouldn't revert even a single time. This is what I mean by it being contextual; the more uncertain you are whether something is an improvement, the less you should revert.

You asked how "repeatedly" is defined. I imagine it means "more than once." This covers the most basic case of edit waring of: 1) I make a bold edit. 2) Someone reverts me. 3) I revert them. (2 total reverts → repeated reverts.) It's left vague because that can be edit warring, but is not necessarily edit warring. For instance, 1) Someone removes sourced content. 2) I revert, thinking it's unjustified. 3) They revert, and note the source is a blog, and thus unsuitable for inclusion. Here I had good reason to revert initially, but the other party provided more information to show the initial edit was correct.

There may be a set of rules that would cover every contingency, but Wikipedia has so many rules already; it's hard enough for someone to learn the rules we have, so adding more complexity will make it even harder to abide by them. In general, the more complicated you make a rule, the less it gets obeyed. I rarely see people drive on the wrong side of the road, but often see people screw up the more complex task of merging.

I hope this makes at least a little sense, and that it's not an unwelcome post. For what it's worth, I have a similar struggle with the "reliable" part of WP:RS. So mostly I either stick to what's unambiguously reliable (peer reviewed studies, .gov or .edu sites, etc.) or else I'll give it one try and, if reverted, talk it out. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice, if in doubt, do not revert but rather talk. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rule is stupid. Just have an one-revert rule for the objecting editor as talking is preferred. There is no point making it confusing. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with that though:

Someone can legitimately object to long-standing content.
Someone is not required to give a reason for an objection (You do not have to engage with the other person. At least they cannot subsequently include content.).
That example seems to beg the question of why allow more than one reversion.

The situations where it is allowed is set out in the edit-war page and make sense. However they apply for more than three reversions. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, John, but this is getting out of hand. I have blocked you for 31 hours for bludgeoning the various discussions about your edit warring demanding precise definitions of "repeatedly" and "flexibility". You know how to request an unblock, so I won't bother throwing the whole template at you again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh...someone wrote that bludgeoning does not apply in that thread. I thought it was excluded. I was unaware that this applied and was informed differently. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly not what Wikipedia:Don't_bludgeon_the_process#Administrative_leeway says. --Yamla (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, if their responses are individually reasonable and necessary, and not just repetitive and argumentative. That train left the station some time ago. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I may have contributed to this by pointing out Administrative Leeway. At the time, JNRN's responses were not repetitive, and I didn't want him sanctioned for responding to the concerns others raised. Unfortunately, this is another example of why context matters; the tone did indeed change from novel responses to rehashed imperatives of "define edit warring". I'm sorry that my statement was not sufficiently clear.

While I know it can be very frustrating, JNRN should understand that Wikipedia is not a debate where logic will win out and points must be adequately addressed. Rather, Wikipedia is a social club, and wearing out others' patience will lead to you being shown the door. The issues faced thus far (edit warring, bludgeoning) would be avoided with an attitude of, "Hm, I don't see why they believe that, but whatever. I'll go edit something else." EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ER, I have a problem with you phrasing this as "logic will win out" versus "social club", when JNRN was insisting on a rigid definition of "flexibility". And this social club has rules that have been developed over decades by people arguing about them and trying to come to the best results for all editors and for the good of the encyclopedia. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't see the rules being developed with great effort by smart people, and logic not being king, to be mutually exclusive. Isn't the point of "common sense" that it's, ultimately, driven by judgement and not formal logic? After all, if we go by logic only, it's impossible to walk across the room. Common sense is why we try and succeed anyway. WP:LAWYER describes this: you can have loads of finely crafted arguments, but ultimately it's about whether people are convinced, hence social club. Does that make sense? And if it does, can you elaborate on what the problem is? My apologies again for irking you; it wasn't my intent, but it seems that's what happened anyway, for which I'm sorry. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We may be saying the same things, just from slightly different angles. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1RR restriction and topic ban

By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, you are subject to a 1RR restriction, indefinitely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the community has imposed a topic ban on you from topics involving Islam and Muslim people. This topic ban may be appealed at ANI after six months have passed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]