Civatrope

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Civatrope. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are neither of you using the article talk page instead of leaving this untraceable chain of templates and warnings across user talk pages?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Antifeminism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

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:Civatrope reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: ). Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Civatrope, you seem to have broken WP:3RR at Antifeminism. It would be in your best interest to respond at the noticeboard and agree not to revert again until you get a talk page consensus. There may still be time to avoid a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Antifeminism

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Antifeminism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

Here is a permanent link to the full report of the AN3 case. EdJohnston (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I believe the user EvergreenFir is more guilty of anything that I am accused of. I request that wiki admin point out the errors in my reasoning on consensus so I will not stumble into situations such as this. I am also a lone completely independent editor but the ANI page is using words like "them", which seems to impute some undeserved "conspiracy theory" into the case. Civatrope (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring; you will need to address that, and that only, in your unblock request. It doesn't matter if you were correct and it doesn't matter what you think other people are guilty of. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:34, 18 January 2014 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

1. On the antifeminist page I believe I had consensus for the revisions I attempted to make and that it was EvergreenFir who is in violation of the three revert rule. 2. On the Gender sociology page, I believe no edit warring has been established. I made a post, EvergreenFir reverted that post, I addressed the complaint in EvergreenFir's reversion, and then I reposted. Civatrope (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As noted, you were blocked for clearly edit warring at antifeminist. There is no exception for thinking that you have consensus. Please focus on your own actions, and not those of other editors. Kuru (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2014 (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.

"RE: Please focus on your own actions, and not those of other editors. Kuru" - That would probably be easy to do if certain users were not involved with so many pages and reverting attempts to edit the pages Civatrope (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

This block is no longer needed. I did abandon the original revert contest fiasco at antifeminsm even before the block was placed, regardless of who was right. My conduct at Gender socialogy should indicate that I do not wish to practice this: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions" WP:EW. I do indeed see how the chain of raw reversions which I was a part of are not productive and do not intend to do that again. Therefore I request that admin remove this block. Civatrope (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

First, it's almost expired anyway. Secondly, and to me much more importantly, all this fussing about who did the reverts and when obscures one undeniable fact here: you violated 3RR. Here are the first three reverts. All within the space of seven hours. You HAD to stop there. But, you didn't or couldn't, and almost admitted as much when you broke 3RR. That must have felt good, because you reverted again 20 or so minutes later. "Wheel turnin' round and round you went back, Jack, and did it again". Frankly if I'd been the blocking admin there'd be an upward adjustment to the block time for this. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2014 (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.