Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive9 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Irpen (talk | contribs) at 21:25, 8 December 2005 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:25, 8 December 2005 by Irpen (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    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. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links


    Example

    User:BadUser

    Three revert rule violation on Articlename (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    BadUser (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: User:ReportingUser 14:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. User:ReportingUser 14:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

    Violations

    User:Boycottthecaf

    I think this user's actions on Watership Down probably qualify as a 3RR (15RR?) violation.

    Reported by: Atlant 00:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Remington and the Rattlesnakes

    Three revert rule violation on Elitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Remington and the Rattlesnakes (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: android79 19:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User refuses to provide a source for his edits, despite numerous requests in edit summaries and on the talk page. I was asked to block him for 3RR on this same article yesterday; he has returned to make the same exact reverts today. Since I am now involved in editing the article, I am not blocking him myself. android79 19:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • NB, this user was blocked by Hall Monitor for this violation. android79 02:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:William M. Connolley

    William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles violation on Kyoto Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SEWilco 20:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Duplicates - William M. Connolley 2 to 12

    I've removed these. See if you must examine their content, and WP:ANI#User:William_M._Connolley_13 if you want to see the latest update. - brenneman

    User:Pigsonthewing

    Three revert rule violation on User_talk:Pigsonthewing (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Locke Cole 12:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User seems to believe it's OK to remove talk from his user talk page. WP:UP doesn't seem to indicate one way or the other about user talk pages, but my feeling is that in this case it shouldn't be allowed. WP:3RR says it doesn't generally apply to user space violations, but states that there are exceptions. Locke Cole 12:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
      • IMO, Pigsonthewing is entitled to remove comments he may see as harrassment from his talk page, especially since they were not being re-added by the person who left them originally. android79 13:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I guess I don't really see the difference between a third party reverting it and the original author. Having said that, if the original author had re-added the comment, would you believe WP:3RR to be applicable? --Locke Cole 13:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
          • No. the 3RR policy is pretty clear on this. 3RR is intended to prevent edit wars on articles. Andy's talk page isn't an article. The purpose of his talk page is for communication. Obviously, since he was upset enough by Karmafist's message to remove it, the communication was received. I don't believe he's trying to cover anything up by removing it, he just didn't want it there. Repeated re-addition borders on harassment. In addition, please don't use edit summaries like rvv when the material you are reverting is clearly not vandalism. android79 18:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

    Further to the above, some of these were to remove thrid- party abuse, re-added by Locke Cole, after I'd asked him to desist (on his talk page). Andy Mabbett 15:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:69.253.195.228

    Three revert rule violation on The eXile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    69.253.195.228 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Mgreenbe 18:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:207.62.70.122

    Three revert rule violation on Latino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    207.62.70.122 (talk · contribs): 207.62.70.179 (talk · contribs): 207.62.70.213 (talk · contribs): 207.62.70.136 (talk · contribs): (All one person))

    Has constantly participated in a revert war in Latino with no discussion in the talk page. To help amend the problem, I personally tried to add a section to the article where this user could place the information on the discrepancy between the actual meaning of the word Latino and the usage in the united states, but the user only continues a revert war.

    List of reverts:

    • Revert 1
    • Revert 2
    • Revert 3
    • Revert 4
    • Revert 5
    • Revert 6
    • Revert 7

    All of the abovereverts were done on November 16th.

    • Revert 8 on 12:37, November 21
    • Revert 9 on 22:46, November 22, 2005 207.62.70.28


    Reported by Cowman 00:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments

    • Are there any admins in particular that have the ability to do this? At the moment the latino article is protected in part to stop the actions of this user, and we hope to have it unprotected so we can continue working on the article. We cannot do this, however, unless this user is blocked. Thanks in advance for any response. Cowman 20:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The user has come back to editing the wikipedia article and has been reverted again - we seriously need this person blocked, and as their ip range constantly changes it's impossible to communicate with them. (Woops, forgot to sign this one. It was me who wrote it - Cowman
    Reverting once a day now may be annoying, but isn't really a war anymore. It appears the range is from LA Community College. I noticed there was only one note on any of the offending IPs talk pages -- might want to try catching the talk page shortly after the edit; this may be nothing more than a new user who doesn't understand what they should be doing. .:.Jareth.:. 22:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I've started adding notes to every one of the user's talk pages that I can find, but I highly doubt any response will come out of this - what should we do if the user still persists? Cowman 00:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


    User:Gibraltarian

    Take 1

    Three revert rule violation on History of Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Gibraltarian (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Ecemaml 09:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Yes, technically, it's right. But only because I'm following with additions in a different article (History of Gibraltar/temp), since it seems that Gibraltarian is allowed to verbally abuse whatever he wants, not provide a single reference and remove sourced information just because he wants (and may). --Ecemaml 18:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    Take 2

    Three revert rule violation on History of Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Removal of {{disputed}} template.

    Gibraltarian (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --Ecemaml 12:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Bright888

    Three revert rule violation on Yamato (people) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Bright888 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Appleby 21:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User: 165.247.213.84

    Three revert rule violation on Winter Soldier Investigation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    165.247.213.84 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: TDC 21:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: Even though both anon editor as well as article is the subject of an RfArb, Anon continues to remove information from article as well as remove dispute header. TDC 21:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

    Less Humorous Comments: Even though TDC as well as the article are the subject of Arbitration, TDC continues to remove information from the article as well as lie about 3RR violations. Any Admin checking the above 4 Diffs will see they are not all reverts (3rd one being a simple change of tag type, for instance). Sorry that admin time had to be wasted like this. 165.247.213.84 00:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

    All you have to do is click on each link to see it is a revert to the 18:11, November 16, 2005 version of the article. You lie so poorly its amazing that anyone believes you. TDC 00:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    Any Admin checking the above 4 Diffs will see they are not all reverts (3rd one being a simple change of tag type, for instance). 165.247.213.84 02:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC

    Three revert rule violation on E. Fuller Torrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC (talk · contribs):

    04:04, November 17, 2005

    Reported by: .:.Jareth.:. 03:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Edit warring all day, attempts to discuss and build concensous have failed; user has made more than 25 revisions to version she prefers. .:.Jareth.:. 03:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:24.55.228.56

    Three revert rule violation on E. Fuller Torrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    24.55.228.56 (talk · contribs):

    07:20, November 17, 2005

    Reported by: .:.Jareth.:. 03:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Edit warring all day, attempts to discuss and build concensous have failed; user has made more than 11 revisions to version he prefers. .:.Jareth.:. 03:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


    User:81.153.41.72

    Three revert rule violation on List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    81.153.41.72 (talk · contribs)

    Reported by: → Ξxtreme Unction {łblah} 16:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments Page is up for AfD. User thinks that the proper way to "protest" the AfD discussion is by putting comments on the article page itself, rather than in the AfD discussion. Edit summaries suggest that 81.153.41.72 (talk · contribs) is also RachelBrown (talk · contribs).

    User:Dbachmann

    Three revert rule violation on Proto-Indo-European language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Dbachmann (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --Nixer 15:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    4 reverts in 24 hours is the rule to be in violation of 3RR and this is not the place to bring it up if you have an issue with his use of admin powers, the place for that would be WP:RFC. I have placed a warning on his talk page regarding 3RR. Jtkiefer ---- 06:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    please do not feed the trolls :) dab (ᛏ) 11:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Andrew Alexander

    Three revert rule violation on Holodomor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Andrew Alexander (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Irpen 07:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    Comments:

    • User has an annoying habit to find an easy way to make sure his out-of-mainstream POV gets the prominence, by spending little time on writing but making sure his writing goes into the lead paragraphs of the articles on controversial topics. This particular case is about his fight to disrupt the lead paragraph of the Holodomor article. As per the 3RR policy clause:
    Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new
    As per the clause above not only the first and the second reverts (which are 100% reverts, i.e. restorations of unaltered previous versions) but also reverts 3 and 4 count since they consist of "undoing the actions of another editor". Revert 3 restores his own version of the lead as of 05:47, November 19, 2005, and revert 4 restores his version of 03:38, November 15, 2005 while making irrelevant changes to other text. The core of the conflict is that the user insists on the term "Genocide" being used as an alternative name to the Holodomor while such an opinion is not established in the mainstream literature as pointed out to him at talk. 3rd revert consists of the moving the phrase within paragraph without change of the meaning. 4th revert again restores his original lead paragraph (thus undoing the changes of a different editor) and making an unrelated change in a totally different section. The user wants to frivolously avoid a 3RR violation while clearly breaking a 3RR spirit.
    The user have been warned in the past that he should not expect to get away with violating 3RR based on technicalities and that an important part of our policies is the spirit in which they're made. At that time, Rob Church as a courtesy gave an offender a warning that while the block is justified, it will not be applied as a courtesy. The user promptly deleted that warning from his talk and today violated the 3RR in exactly same fashion. --Irpen 07:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    Blocked for 24 hours. Jtkiefer ---- 07:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Nohat at aluminium

    Violation of Three revert rule reported by Jooler 03:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

    Blocked for 24 and left a note on the user talk page. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Jaybee From his Castle

    Reverted Desiree Washington 4 times in the last 24 hours. PatGallacher 23:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

    Blocked for 24 hours and notified the user on his talk page. —Cleared as filed. 04:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


    User:Eclipse McMahon

    3 revert rule violation on Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Eclipse McMahon (talk · contribs):

    I am not involved in the dispute (I came across it while going through WP:RfP). So I'll do this myself. I had missed this one besides. It was actually 5 reverts in a 24 hour period. --Woohookitty 01:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


    User:81.111.172.198

    Three revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ombudsman (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    81.111.172.198 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: User:Jfdwolff 21:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Information provided by User:Jfdwolff incorrect. User:Jfdwolff posted illegal material and it was the illegal material that was removed pending a request for a policy statement from Misplaced Pages regarding unlawful actions by Administrator User:Jfdwolff. Administrator Cleared as filed. should have maintained the status quo pending resolution by higher authority as Cleared as filed. admits being "in no position to pass judgment". A policy statement is still awaited. For full details please see "Regrettably Inappropriate Action from "Cleared as filed" On 05:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)" ] .
    • It would seem inappropriate for User:Jfdwolff to seek to have a User blocked when the matter arose from correcting a very recent (and not longstanding) posting by User:Jfdwolff. User:Jfdwolff also appears ill-mannered in dealings with other Wikipedians and fails to enter into meaningful dialogue or respond properly to valid comments made by others to attempt to achieve consensus.
    • I am still waiting for an answer to the questions posed here and here .
    81.111.172.198 14:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Asked and answered on that page, your attempts at playing amateur lawyer notwithstanding: It doesn't matter if you think you're right or that your edits are serving a higher purpose — almost everyone thinks that their edits are right or noble. Whatever your grievances, you have to settle them within the rules of Misplaced Pages. --Calton | Talk 14:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, there is no answer provided. I do not have a grievance. The law appears to be being contravened by a Misplaced Pages Administrator and attempt was properly made to correct that. There is a seeming contravention of the law and Misplaced Pages seems to be unable to self-regulate the matter.
    • With your comment you make the point. You do not seem to have any rules about Misplaced Pages being used by Administrators or others acting illegally or where there is a question as to the legality of their actions or those of others. Further, it would be more appropriate to adopt a civil tone. Being insulting and rude is an inappropriate way to enter into dialogue and does little to advance your arguments. At the same time as no Misplaced Pages policy has been forthcoming on the matter it seems there is none. If I am wrong on that, I wait to be corrected but time is passing with no answer.
    • What is the Misplaced Pages policy on seeming libel for example? Is there one? There must surely be one? If there is, then why is there not a Misplaced Pages policy on other seeming contraventions of the law? Are the Misplaced Pages policies to ignore seeming illegality and to act in contempt for the laws of the states in which Misplaced Pages operates? If there seems to be a libel, do you just leave it up or do you take it down until the matter has been resolved? So what is the position on contraventions of data protection laws or any other law for that matter? Do you continue the seeming contravention oblivious to the laws of the rest of the world or do you act to comply and resolve the matter as to whether there is or is not a contravention?
    81.111.172.198 16:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Reddi

    Three revert rule violation on Timeline of the Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Reddi (talk · contribs)

    Comments: I have been trying to engage Reddi on the talkpage to explain why he doesn't want this redirect. Other users on the talkpage have agreed with my edit but Reddi refuses to discuss and instead simply reverts. There is an RfC and a Misplaced Pages:Requests for Arbitration out on him that he also refuses to respond to, apparently according to the complaint. --Joshuaschroeder 22:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Elerner

    Three revert rule violation on Plasma cosmology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    BadUser (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Reported by: Joshuaschroeder 18:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: User has been warned about such behavior and has a current RfC about his editorial practices, but he has made it clear that he will continue to revert without regard for editorial processes here at Misplaced Pages. --Joshuaschroeder 18:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

    Indeed you are correct. I didn't look closely at the date stamp. --Joshuaschroeder 19:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Shivraj Singh

    User:Shivraj Singh has voilated the 3RR rule on the page Sher Shah Suri.

    خرم Khurram 15:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:128.174.114.5 aka User:70.225.173.111 aka User:128.174.114.6 aka User:128.174.114.3

    Three revert rule violation on Plymouth-Canton Educational Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    128.174.114.5 (talk · contribs)/70.225.173.111 (talk · contribs)/128.174.114.6 (talk · contribs)

    Reported by: brenneman 01:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I've left a note on this user's talk page as well s that of the person whom is serially reverting them. This is a bit odd, but looking at the page history has gone on far too long. - brenneman 01:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    Blocked both IPs for 24 hours (as well as 67.149.77.77, who was also in violation). · Katefan0 05:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


    user:Zen-master

    Three revert rule violation on Conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Zen-master (talk · contribs):

    • The consensus among other editors is that the POV tag should be removed. There has been no discussion of disputes, other than the POV tag, on the talk page. This user does not appear to be working towards consensus, but rather keeps bringing up the same objections no matter how many times they've been addressed. -Willmcw 02:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    He came to an agreement with Neutrality. Unblocked him. --Woohookitty 07:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    What is the agreement? I don't see any discussion on their talk pages. -Willmcw 08:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    Apparently the agreement must have been that ZM should keep revert and edit warring on the page. See the page history. Carbonite | Talk 17:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    Sigh, I've only had 1 revert in the last 24 hours or so, and this incident here was more than 24 hours ago. I find it very interesting the POV pushing bot-esque gang is out in full, highly coordinated, force today. zen master T 17:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Zero0000

    Three revert rule violation on Palestinian exodus .

    5 times in 20 hours

    • 1st revert: 12:55, 24 November 2005
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert: 08:58, 25 November 2005

    Reported by: Zeq 10:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: User is an admin. Engaged in edit wars without properexplnations of his edit on talk page.

    Reply: Zeq does not understand what a revert is. Of those 5 edits, only the 2nd, 3rd and 5th were reverts according to normal 3RR practice. Therefore I did not break the rule. Though it is not an argument I need here, the 5th edit was in my opinion reversion of vandalism since what I did was to undo Zeq's deletion of a long-standing major section of the article without a good reason. Zeq shouldn't think he can just make repeated massive deletions and be protected by the 3RR. --Zero 11:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    Reply to the reply: All these edits are reverts. (if I need to "prove" it let me know. I am sure looking at the history page of the article will make it clear. It is fairly easy to locate an edit that was added and then Zero's first revert (which he claim is not a revert) Describing my edits as 'vandalism" to justify his reverts is not the proper way to solve edit disputes. For that there is the talk page not the revert button. Zeq

    Dbachmann (talk · contribs):

    Three revert rule violation on Proto-World Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Reported by: User:Nixer 15:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • The User used his administrative power to block me for 48 hours, arguing with 3RR violation (which he had not right to do because of the 3RR rule, wich allowes to block users only for 24h maximum), even dispite the fact I added a new staff to the article triing to achive compromise.--Nixer 15:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Another user participated, User:Izehar just e-mailed me his apologies: "I have checked your edits on "Proto-World language" again, and they appear to not be vandalism - I apologise to you for reverting you and suggesting that you were vandalising the article. I shouldn't have got involved."--Nixer 15:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Emir Arven

    Four times reverted Meša Selimović:

    Reported by: Nikola 14:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    I have blocked the user for 24 hours. Despite warnings, he continued to revert on Meša Selimović (, his fifth revert in 24 hours, and also violated the 3RR on Petar Petrović Njegoš (5 reverts , , , , and between 19:46, November 24, 2005 and 17:31, November 25, 2005). -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Zen-master

    WP:3RR violation on Conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zen-master (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: SlimVirgin 17:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments

    • Zen-master has reverted the intro around 12 times since 17:50 on November 24, making complex partial reverts in an effort to game the system. However, he has slipped up a couple of times and has reverted to certain phrases four or more times. The diffs above concentrate on one of these phrases: that conspiracy theory is a "dubious narrative genre". He has also added the word "controversially" to the start of a sentence at least four times. SlimVirgin 17:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • These are not straight reverts, but cleanups defending the article from attack by a highly coordinated POV pushing bot-esque gang. They do not debate in good faith and only seem to do things with some sort of POV mission in mind. Isn't it odd that a handful of highly coordinated editors show up to an article suddenly? zen master T 18:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Isn't it odd that one user believes that he's entitled to make a dozen complex reverts to an article in a 24 hour period? Carbonite | Talk 18:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
        • A reasonable response to bullying by an exponentially coordinated bad faithed gang of POV pushers. zen master T 18:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
          • zen-master, as if your dozen complex reverts wasn't bad enough, you have also engaged in an escalating series of personal attacks. The next time I see one I will block you for 24 hours, so please take care not to violate WP:NPA. Jayjg 18:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Point out one? In my interpertation it is very suspicious that you and your POV aligned buddies all show up to the same article, at the same time, with a very high degree of coordinatation. It appears to me that you and your friends are always on some sort of POV mission as neutrality and debating in good faith are not your goals. zen master T 18:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
              • Then perhaps you should begin to assume good faith and consider that perhaps it's your goals that are out of alignment with NPOV. Carbonite | Talk 18:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
                • I did assume good faith at one time, then as I gathered more evidence and paid attention I learned from experience that assumptions can be misleading. If NPOV is in dispute the first thing we should do is signify that fact, right? Why then have you been working to deny the existence of controversy in the article? Anyone from your POV aligned gang can discuss specific issues with the changes I am making on the talk page, but you and they are mostly not doing that (very surprising given the number of people in your POV aligned gang). For example, I think the word "ostensibly" is a perfect neutral replacement for "commonly believed" but you and your POV aligned friends keep reverting it. zen master T 18:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
                  • I've blocked you for 24 hours for your continued personal attacks. Another admin who is reading this might want to block for an additional 24 hours for the 3RR violations - I note you have reverted yet again. Jayjg 18:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Clear 3RR violation, "ostensibly" seems to have come and so many times it must be about dizzy, setting aside any of the other changes. I don't personally care to make it "consecutive 24h terms", though, Jayjg's block will suffice (even if it's not ideally performed by an involved party). Alai 04:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Cool Cat

    Three revert rule violation on Kurdistani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cool Cat (talk · contribs):

    Reported by:

    Comments:

    • Please block this idiotic pov pusher. Indefinately if you really want as he is badly pissed. --Cool Cat 17:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The frst three reverts are part of a dispute as to where the redirect should point. The last one is the creation of a fork. While Cool Cat technically broke the 3RR, this is closer to reverting vandalism than revert warring. While his comments here and in his edit summary there makes suggests that he needs a break, I am not in favour of a block in this instance. Guettarda 17:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:65.95.17.92

    Three revert rule violation on Supervillain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.95.17.92 (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Reported by: Turnstep 21:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: 

    Bell Canada BELLNEXXIA-11 (NET-67-68-0-0-1)
                                 67.68.0.0 - 67.71.255.255
Bell Canada BELLNEXXIA-10 (NET-65-92-0-0-1)
                                 65.92.0.0 - 65.95.255.255

    - Turnstep 03:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Cedars

    Three revert rule violation on Electrical engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cedars (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Reported by: Barberio 03:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Really doesnt want a {globalize} tag on this article. Was warned after the third revert. --Barberio 03:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I was just moving it to the talk page - I have stopped reverting it now and will not edit electrical engineering and talk for 24 hours (no exceptions) - was my mistake I didn't see one of the reverts (in fairness other users were reverting too). Cedars

    User:EaZyZ99

    Three revert rule violation on Penis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). EaZyZ99 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: —Locke Cole 07:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:HolyRomanEmperor

    Three revert rule violation on Oj, svijetla majska zoro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    HolyRomanEmperor (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Chris 73 | Talk 13:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: User is in conflict with User:Emir Arven, who got blocked by me for a 3RR above. During this, I explained the 3RR to HolyRomanEmperor. HolyRomanEmperor left me a warning on my userpage not to block him . There is some discussion going on on user talk pages, but it is a 3RR violation nevertheless. In particular, a Serbian language claim previously removed was added again 4 times within 24 hours. Since I have blocked his Opponent Emir Arven for 24 hours for a 3RR, i blocked HolyRomanEmperor also for 24 hours (as per sysops should treat all sides equally above). Disclaimer: I have never edited the article, have no interest in this topic, and are not involved in this conflict in any way except for enforcing the 3RR. -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Max rspct

    Three revert rule violation on September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Max rspct (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Tom Harrison 16:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:Wikipediatrix

    Three revert rule violation on Ashlee Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Wikipediatrix (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Extraordinary Machine 17:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Chaosfeary

    Three revert rule violation on Islamofascism (term) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chaosfeary (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:

    Reported by:Cberlet 21:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

    Blocked for 24 hours.--Sean|Black 21:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    Oops, I blocked him as well. I'll go tell him on the page. Jayjg 22:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    Oh, I see you've done that as well. Well, since I'm obviously not needed here, I'll go elsewhere. :-) Jayjg 22:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:MagnaVox

    Three revert rule violation on Debra Lafave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MagnaVox (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: —Locke Cole 09:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:80.217.152.161

    Three revert rule violation on Hawiye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    80.217.152.161 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Gyrofrog (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Trollderella

    Three revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Trollderella (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to:
    1. 18:50, November 29, 2005
    2. 19:31, November 29, 2005
    3. 22:46, November 29, 2005
    4. 23:55, November 29, 2005
    5. 00:23, November 30, 2005

    Reported by: Radiant_>|< 23:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • There is controversy over the wording of some CSDs. That is being discussed on the talk page. In the meantime, however, reverting is not helpful to the discussion.
    btw, 3rd listed violation isn't a revert, though that's still is 4 reverts in less than 24 hours. Jtkiefer ---- 01:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

    User:HunTomy

    Three revert rule violation on Treaty of Trianon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HunTomy (talk · contribs):

    • reverted a fascist film used for extremism propaganda

    (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Second_Vienna_Award&diff=29349424&oldid=29321409)

    User User:HunTomy :

    • makes controversial, nationalist edits in Second Vienna Award;
    • makes controversial, nationalist edits in First Vienna Award,
    • makes controversial, nationalist edits in Treaty of Trianon,
    • inserts unsupported figures for the number of romanians in Transylvania and refuses to cite sources;
    • makes controversial, nationalist and unverifiable edits (including fake figures) in Romania related articles (Treaty of Trianon, First Vienna Award)
    • routinely insults other contributors in edit summaries
    • harasses and insults contributors who disagree with his edits
    • routinely questions the good faith of contributors who disagree with, or even question, his edits

    Reported by -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 13:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC) Reported by: --Orioane 07:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

    Also sockpuppetry - 81.182.108.116 same topics, same views, while he was blocked
    • Harassment, insults
    • He said paranoids to other editors

    Reported by -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 19:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Iipmstudent9

    Three revert rule violation on The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Iipmstudent9 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Ravikiran 19:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC) Comments:

    • This is part of a long revert war that has been going on. The issue is being discussed in the talk page, but Iipmstudent9 takes the view that the views of the institute in question (IIPM) deserve precedence over the views of its critics. Incidentally, don't be misled by the conciliatory tone of the edit summaries. The same person has been threatening to get people out of their jobs here, here and here . Also note that the institute in question has been in the news for sending legal notices to critics and getting people to lose their jobs for daring to criticise it ("Drnoamchomsky" is the same person as Iipmstudent9, by Iipmstudent9's own admission - see the article talk page.) --Ravikiran 19:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • There is one more violation here 09:40, 1 December 2005. Even if you consider only the userid edits, this is th 4th one within 24 hours, else it is the 5th one. P.S. It looks like I too ended up violating 3rr, so go ahead and block me if needed. Sorry. --Ravikiran
    • Taking a look at this, I've decided not to impose a block on any parties. Both parties are aware of the disruptiveness of their actions and should come to an understanding.--Sean|Black 06:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:68.104.145.156

    Three revert rule violation on Franklin Lashley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.104.145.156 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Lakes 23:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • As you can see from the users history this has been going on for a while. The current data has references, yet he fails to give any proof on his points, instead he gives insults and derogatory comments, like visible from edit: . A quote from his latest edit: "It's not Dominator. Stop vandalising. Dude, haven't you noticed that I'm not gonna stop this until you leave it to what it should be!?" ().
    As all these edits were quite some time ago blocking would only have to be purely punitive so I will warn and I suggest keeping an eye on him/her. Jtkiefer ---- 22:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


    User:WarriorScribe

    Three revert rule violation on Wife Swap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Reported by: --Jason Gastrich 20:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments: Known troll is POV pushing. He wants to suppress the fact that Wife Swap has been accused of misrepresenting its participants' lives. Cited source from participant makes this claim, so it is legitimate and a mention about Wife Swap's questionable actions should be included.

    This is a revert war between Jason Gastrich and several other users. I suggest you try some further discussion or dispute resolution. A personal blog is not generally considered a reliable source. .:.Jareth.:. 20:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    I understand, but if the man's name and picture are on it (and they match the name and picture of the man on Wife Swap), then can't we confirm that it is indeed the same person and the information is from him?--Jason Gastrich 21:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    Maybe the simplest thing would be to ask Reggie if he doesn't mind if his blog is used, but then you still run into the problem of POV through a blog, as opposed to a neutral evaluation of the subject matter. This is why specific personalities should be avoided, though general summaries of events, criticisms, and incidents, as related to the point that I tried to make ("Reality TV vs Reality") could remain. - WarriorScribe 21:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • You probably should just take a look here and then start here and read each comment by Jason Gastrich in the thread, and you will see that, while I am striving for neutrality, the changes being made by Gastrich are designed to hold up a particular individual to scrutiny and ridicule. - WarriorScribe 20:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
        • WarriorScribe (Dave Hunt) isn't striving for neutrality or else he would have written something neutral instead of reverting 4 times.--Jason Gastrich 21:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
          • In fact, I did post a fairly neutral comment under a new heading, "Reality TV vs Reality," that Gastrich removed without comment. Furthermore, Gastrich is not being entirely honest when he claims that I want to "suppress the fact that Wife Swap has been accused of misrepresenting its participants' lives." I don't want to "suppress" that, at all. I have never written that this is my intent and nothing that I have written anywhere can be shown to even imply that. Gastrich made it up, just as he makes up so many things and then pretends to call them "facts." What I am doing is challenging Gastrich's attempts to use Misplaced Pages to his own ends. Links already provided have demonstrated that Gastrich has a personal agenda against the "atheist" involved in this particular episode. There is no reason to get into specifics of that sort in a summary description of a TV series. There is no coincidence in the fact that there had been no editings of that particular article since November 22nd, and October 31st before that, and yet, after being involved in some heated discussion at the Infidel Guy site, Gastrich decided to "proof read" the article and insert some unflattering commentary. - WarriorScribe 21:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    I think Warrior Scribe (talk · contribs) and Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) should be blocked for 24 hours. There is a lot of previous here from Usenet from an ongoing feud in which both parties are being very childish. — Dunc|☺ 20:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    This complaint is about reverting and suppressing the truth; not about the past and not about extra-Wiki things. If it were, I would be happy to provide a dissertation on Dave Hunt's antics. Let's keep focused on what is going on here.--Jason Gastrich 21:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    Well, I know a "Dave Hunt" and it isn't me. Still, Gastrich does get personalities confused quite frequently and his "dissertations" are simply his fantasies and distortions. I agree that they are not relevant here. - WarriorScribe 21:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    Jason, I noticed that Jareth was nice enough to warn you Jason here (at 20:41 UTC) and because of that and since you are apparently trying to draft a compromise position is why I think it would be a mistake to block at this point however I would definitely support a 24 hour block for each of you if this continues since not only are you giving plenty of leeway within WP:3RR but also edit warring is very harmful, that's just my view though and I won't get in the way if another administrator feels a block is appropriate. Jtkiefer ---- 22:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    This looks like an outside fight that has spilled onto Misplaced Pages. My advice: Cut it out, or I'll block both of you for 24 hours. However, I'd be willing to help both parties engage in discussion, if they so wish (if not, the Mediation Cabal could help you guys out.--Sean|Black 00:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    WarriorScribe is just a big-headed bully. Now, he has reverted my contribution (which simply removed two phrases: one needless/POV and one run-on) because he perceives that he's the Wiki God and nobody can contribute after his pen leaves the paper. --Jason Gastrich 18:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    It is partially an outsider fight. However, many people from Misplaced Pages have started attending to Gastrich as a result of his POV pushing. For a very old example, look at the revert war at Antony Flew. Not all those in this conflict are from outside areas. Harvestdancer 16:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    A quick review of Jason Gastrich's activity on the Wife Swap article shows he's reverted there 6 times in the last 24hr. Taken with his with the disingenuousness of accusing 3rr against his opponent there, it's certainly worthy of a 24 hr block for 3rr. FeloniousMonk 18:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:ScienceApologist

    Three revert rule violation on Redshift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    ScienceApologist (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --Iantresman 23:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • I think that some of these "extensive edits" amount to a 'revert'.
    • User will not present any evidence for his edits, whereas I have provided much peer-reviewed evidence as indicated by the article talk page.
    • User recently changed his username from joshuashroeder under which username he was recently subject to a temporary ban
    • User 24.12.29.115 traces to Chicago, Illinois, ScienceApologist's home town.

    User:69.253.195.228

    Three revert rule violation on Mark Ames. 69.253.195.228 (talk · contribs): After removing an image from the article.

    Reported by Dsol 12:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:MagnaVox (2nd violation)

    Three revert rule violation on Debra Lafave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MagnaVox (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Locke Cole 03:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • 2nd time this user has violated WP:3RR on this article (see further above). This user has previously been warned about WP:3RR, but has chosen to remove the warning from their talk page. Locke Cole 03:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Once again, I must protest the biased application of this rule because it has not been applied to Locke_Cole for his record 7 rvt's in one day on the Debra Lafave article. This shows that certain WikipNedian administrators cannot be trusted to follow written policy. That would include Sean Black and GraemeL. MagnaVox 14:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • If you believe that he/she had violated 3RR, then report it properly and it will be investigated. "He/she's doing it too!" is not a valid defense to an allegation of 3RR-violation. --Nlu 14:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • We were both revert warring over what I deemed at the time to be vandalism. After deciding that revert warring was getting nowhere with you, I warned you of WP:3RR on your potential violation, then reverted one final time. You chose to ignore the warning and revert again, and I reported it (further above here). In my report I noted that, depending on if it was or wasn't viewed as vandalism, I might also be guilty of 3RR. Locke Cole 14:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I reviewed this more closely and I don't like what I see. There were, indeed, 7 reverts by Locke Cole on November 28th, and MagnaVox was blocked for those, and Locke Cole was not. Normally I'd just let this pass with a warning, but I am not OK with even the merest whif of people gaming 3RR to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. So I'm enforcing a 24 hour block in this case. Locke Cole, you should know better: vandalism and content disputes are two different things. There is never a good reason to violate 3RR; you can always involve another editor or an admin to help you. We are not standing alone here. Please be more careful in the future. MagnaVox, I'll be keeping an eye on this article for the next few days, so I expect you to be on your absolute best behavior, now and in the future. Nandesuka 14:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

    To Nandesuka: Thank you. Locke Cole has been using his friends and knowledge of the site's rules to attack my work in every way except through honest exchange. It's not just a link that I've added to that article but other information which he has seen fit to censor. For example, I added to Debra Lafave's background that she was sexually assaulted as a teenager (which I believe is highly significant to her case) and he removed it. He quotes rules that yahoo groups are not allowed as WP links yet I have seen many linked through searching. So, apparently, this is not really a hard and fast rule on WP, just something to be used when you're an editor that doesn't take criticism well.

    In fact, whatever WP link rule he has brought up, I have shown that it is routinely violated on many other WP pages leading me to believe that the only real rules here are what every individual editor wants them to be as long as he has enough friends to back himself up.

    He also claims (without any proof) that the link I have added is my site and then proclaims I'm guilty of self-promotion.

    I would like independent arbitration by a counsel of administrators to settle this matter once and for all but am not exactly sure how to request it. It's sad to have to go to that length but, I see no other way or resolving this type of conflict because I will not back down in a fight that is really about censorship. MagnaVox 15:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Dbiv

    Three revert rule violation on George Galloway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dbiv (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --84.68.228.215 08:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Continues to revert despite considerable opposition on the talk page. This user is and Admin and should be setting a higher example.
    Already blocked for 24 hours for this 3RR violation. For what its worth he did the same thing with five reverts in 24 hours a few days ago too. When someone pointed out that he had broken the 3RR rule, his response was to point the editor to Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules. Wonderful behaviour for an admin. AlistairMcMillan 09:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm concerned that AlistairMcMillan has blocked David and yet was one of the people reverting against him in the content dispute. We're not allowed to block people in articles we're actively engaged in editing, so it might be best if Alistair were to unblock him and allow an uninvolved admin to deal with this. SlimVirgin 10:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    I've removed my block. AlistairMcMillan 10:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you, Alistair. Perhaps someone not involved could take a look at it. I've just edited the article myself, so I can't do anything either. I'm pasting below our conversation from our talk pages. SlimVirgin 10:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    Alistair, sorry to bother you with this, but I just noticed you blocked Dbiv, even though you were involved in the content dispute. That's a violation of the blocking policy, so it might be best (for your own sake) if you were to unblock him and let an uninvolved admin handle it. Message for you about it at WP:AN/3RR#User:Dbiv. Cheers, SlimVirgin 10:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    If I unblock Dbiv, is there any likelihood of anything being done about his breaking of the 3RR rule twice inside a week? No offence, but I'd feel a lot more confident about following your advice if you hadn't just reverted his version, which is clearly against the consensus view on the Talk page. AlistairMcMillan 10:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    Hi again, I've only just started editing the article, so I don't know the issues or who is taking which side. All I know is that we're not allowed to block people we're having content disputes with, so regardless of the consequences, you should really unblock him, for your own sake as much as anything else. Another admin is likely to come along and reblock if it was a genuine violation (and I'm not saying I think it wasn't, only that I haven't looked at the diffs). SlimVirgin 10:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    Would you mind telling me what "for my own sake" refers to? Just curious, because he's been using similar language all morning. AlistairMcMillan 10:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    We should really have this discussion on the 3RR page, so I'm going to move the comments there. By "for your own sake," I meant that you have violated the blocking policy, which is regarded as a serious offence for an admin, particularly in the current climate, as there have been a couple of recent controversial instances of it. You'd therefore be doing yourself a favor if you were to unblock and perhaps ask an uninvolved admin to look at the situation. SlimVirgin 10:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    Alistair, at 10:37 you said you had removed the block, but I can't see that it's been removed, unless I have a cache problem. SlimVirgin 10:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    You unblocked the autoblock but not the user account. It needs to be done separately. SlimVirgin 10:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:RK

    Three revert rule violation on Chabad Lubavitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RK (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    Additionally please revert back to version from before RK started his edits.

    • Can you please fix the above by providing diffs rather than just the changed page, as in the example at the top of this page? Also, please sign your name using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ -- SCZenz 20:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Flavius Aetius (in concert with User:Brian Brockman)

    Three revert rule violation on Talk:Ken Mehlman (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Flavius Aetius (talk · contribs)

    Reported by: · Katefan0/my ridiculous poll 20:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Flavius Aetius has repeatedly removed an entire thread of conversation between several editors on Talk:Ken Mehlman, citing as his reasoning that much of the thread was copied from a user's personal talk page. It was copied there because the discussions bore on a currently disputed topic on the Ken Mehlman page, Republicans reputed to be gay who dodge questions about their sexuality (the inclusion of such information is also a topic of dispute on Ken Mehlman). Flavius Aetius is aware of policies regarding 3RR, as he previously violated it on the article itself and, rather than reporting the error here, I placed a warning on his talk page which he has since blanked . · Katefan0/my ridiculous poll 20:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    I'd encourage any admin reviewing this report to look through the talk page history; it appears Brian Brockmeyer has also violated 3RR at this point. · Katefan0/my ridiculous poll 20:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks much Wikibofh, though I disagree that it wasn't vandalism. I'm not sure how you can have a content dispute over the blanking of a talk page thread (this was, after all, an issue of removing others' comments). Regardless, thanks. · Katefan0/my ridiculous poll 21:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I view it as a content dispute, where whether or not the content should be there is disputed.  :) I think blanking is normally vandalism. But if you've reverted 4 or 5 times, you need to get admins involved, not continue to revert more. I'm going to keep myself cheerfully out an analysis of the content. I have informed User:Asbl of this as well (talk and email). If other admins believe I'm wrong, I will happily bow to consensus. Wikibofh 21:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Asbl

    Has reverted over TEN times within last 24 hours after being corrected for pasting discussions that took place on a user's talk page to the talk page on the Ken Mehlman article (as these discussions took place on a user's private talk page, they do not belong on a community talk page since not all members of the community were privy to the discussion). Has shown blatant disregard for 3RR.Brian Brockmeyer 20:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    Please note that Brian Brockmeyer has been reported above, and seems to not understand that blanking is simple vandalism. The 3RR does not apply to reverting his vandalisms. --Asbl 21:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:68.112.201.90 and User:Braaad

    Three revert rule violation on Civil Air Patrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.112.201.90 (talk · contribs) and Braaad (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: McNeight 01:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Chooserr

    Three revert rule violation on Mathura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chooserr (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Sortan 20:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Violation on Euripides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chooserr (talk · contribs):

    Reported by SlimVirgin 20:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

    • Blocked for 24 hours. I note that the policy on dates is deliberately ambiguous about which version to use if there's disagreement, and that he may be confusing it with the "use original author" provision for British vs. American spellings. Nevertheless, content/policy disagreements do not excuse repeated 3RR violations. -- SCZenz 20:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I have now unblocked him for 24 hours, because he agreed not to make any more changes to date systems for the next 24 hours. See User_talk:Chooserr#3RR block. I also explained the ambiguous policy situation, and explained that no policy or content dispute excuses 3RR violations. If he violates my condition of no date system changes, his 24-hour 3RR block should be reinstated. I also recommend against further leniency if there are other 3RR violations. -- SCZenz 21:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I see little evidence of good faith here, SCZ. He went back to editing Euripides on his 3RR version, even though he'd been asked three times to revert himself. SlimVirgin 21:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I will look into it immediately. -- SCZenz 22:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
            He added wikilinks to what was then the current version, even if it was the result of his 3RR violation. You switched back to the 3RR version, which caused his work to be lost but was the right thing to do. Now he can readd those wikilinks if he likes, but if he reverts the date changes I'll block him. I don't think there is any further problem at this time.
            Although the actions you cite make me suspicious that he was trying to cement his preferred version of the article, evidence of good faith is not required. He violated the 3RR and misunderstood policy on dates, but does not appear to have done these things in bad faith. I am only going to require adherence to the rules, and to the condition I gave him for repreive of his block; I can't require that he repudiate his views on policy and content.
            I will, however, continue to watch his contributions for signs of trouble. -- SCZenz 22:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I appreciate how you handled the situation, SCZ, and like that you assume good faith. However, I think that User:Chooserr's claim that he was misled is unfair to Shanes; I can see how Chooserr may have misread Shanes' comments on his user page, but as far as I can tell Shanes never deliberately mislead him, and Chooserr persisted even after Shanes and others tried to clarify matters for him. I am not asking you to block him again, I just think he shouldn't blame another user. Tom Radulovich 22:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I admit I didn't read Shanes' comment in my investigations, and certainly didn't wish to blame him for anything. I only meant to claim that Chooserr's misunderstanding of policy is a mitigating factor. -- SCZenz 22:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Just to clarify, I wasn't saying SCZ shouldn't have unblocked. I also like to see it when we assume good faith and unblock early. SlimVirgin 22:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
            • (after edit conflict) I think we're all in agreement. Now Chooserr has had 3RR and date policy both explained in crystal-clear terms, so I think we should forgive (but not forget) his previous actions and take further (and less lenient) action if and only if he continues in his previous course. -- SCZenz 22:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
          • In the spirit of good faith, Chooserr is busy egging on other users to revert back his recent changes: . Sigh. Tom Radulovich 22:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Someone should perhaps clarify the 3RR rule to him, as he seems to be engaged in a revert war at War on Christmas (talk · history · watch) (I don't think the anon's edits can be classified as simple vandalism, as the article has some POV problems which are perhaps being overcompensated for by the anon). I count 5+ reverts. Sortan 01:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I tried to explain the relationship between 3RR, POV edits, and simple vandalism today, but I think I could have done a better job (or he's just taking advantage of me being nice above). Can I ask another admin to look into this and handle as appropriate? -- SCZenz 05:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • And... he's broken 3RR again on Euripides (as well as violated his parole). Sortan 18:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

    Thawa (a brand new account) appeared at War on Christmas, and reinserted two of Chooserr's non-NPOV elements. Thawa also used hidden article comments in lieu of the talk page, a peculiar practice in which Chooserr has engaged twice .

    Thawa's first Misplaced Pages edit was to the Euripides article, and occurred 41 minutes after Chooserr's 24-hour block was reinstated. —Lifeisunfair 20:51/23:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

    Thawa has resumed edit warring at War on Christmas, removing valid content and reinserting the same non-NPOV material and hidden comments that Chooserr repeatedly pushed. Thawa also is editing Euripides. Can someone please block this obvious sock puppet? —Lifeisunfair 00:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    Thawa showed up at Timeline of Eastern philosophers and reverted the dates from BCE/CE to Chooserr's BC/AD version. Thawa also changed BCE to BC at Zhuangzi. Can something please be done? —Lifeisunfair 09:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    I've reviewed Thawa's contributions. Yes, it may be suspicious, and yet I see no conclusive evidence that Thawa is a sock puppet of Chooserr. (Of course, I may simply be too new and not realizing it.) Unless someone can run their IPs and conclude that they're the same person, I feel that I cannot in good conscience block Thawa or even warn him/her. Your mileage may vary, of course. --Nlu 10:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    To me, the evidence (which also includes the fact that Thawa added links to the Scots language Misplaced Pages at The Light that Failed and Nestlé Smarties) is overwhelming, but I can understand why you'd be reluctant to issue a block without absolute proof.
    I've been periodically checking #Misplaced Pages for the five ArbCom members with CheckUser rights, but I haven't found one yet.
    Are you able to view the exact time at which the Thawa account was created? I only know that the first edit occurred 41 minutes after Chooserr was re-blocked. —Lifeisunfair 10:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    The account was created 28 minutes after Chooserr was blocked. Still, not conclusive, in my opinion. --Nlu 10:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    I was able to contact Kelly Martin via IRC. She has confirmed that "one of IP addresses used to edit by Thawa was used 32 minutes later by Chooserr." —Lifeisunfair 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

    seems to be at it again

    User:Bobblewik

    Three revert rule violation on United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bobblewik (talk · contribs):

    Comments:

    Bobblewik has been running what is literally one man crusade to merge parts of two articles. Everyone disagrees. He has spent day running campaigns on the two articles despite appeals to stop from everyone. FearÉIREANN\ 21:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

    • Yes, I went over the 3RR. Sorry, I will try to make sure it does not happen again. I do not know where to respond in full but here is a summary.
    • I notice that the above quoted '1st revert' is different to the others. An anonymous editor had characterised their edit as reverting my removal of year links which was a different matter to the merge tag. I had removed year links in accordance with the Manual of Style so I reverted their revert.
    • The edit in question is the addition of a merge tag. I did not do any merging because I was merely seeking (and got) a debate.
    • A reasonably polite debate took place. Unfortunately the tag was removed during the debate with no comment or by false statements (e.g 'discussion has petered out' less than 2 hours after the previous debating point). I put the tag back whilst the debate continued. I asked for advice on this at RfA and Village Pump. I am not aware of the policy on tags added in good faith but removal by stealth, by misleading statements, and within only 1.5 days of the debate starting is wrong. I thought 7 days for a tag during a live debate was reasonable. Unfortunately I allowed these wrongs to wind me up and I should consider the bigger picture. I would be happy to discuss this more if wanted. Bobblewik 22:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Is that a commitment to stop adding the tag and / or revert warring? Jkelly 22:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Just to clarify, there was a detailed debate with numerous contributors. Bobble was pretty much in a tiny minority with users queuing to disagree over and over. It is not standard to put tags on pages that are the most visited. That was pointed out to Bobble by SimonP. In addition a major debate had already happened involving a lot of users so it wasn't as if a tag was being placed in at the start of a debate. Users pointed out that the issue had already been discussed for days in exhausting detail. The template was removed because the view was that the debate had already happened and an overwhelming consensus already arrived at in a long debate. Nobody doubts Bobble's genuineness, which is why the 3RR was not reported when he breached three, but when he did it a fourth time and seemed determined to persist against the wishes of all the other participants to keep the debate going on using the template even though a clear result was there it was necessary to enforce the rule. FearÉIREANN\ 23:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:JDG

    Three revert rule violation on Bob Dylan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JDG (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Monicasdude 00:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User:JDG regularly reverts contributions of other editors (mine in particular) to his preferred, much older (2-year-old!) text. He declared his intention to restore the old text, despite the contributions of a very large number of editors and the conspicuous lack of support for his text, some time ago (for example, in this edit summary . Aside from 3RR violations, these edits involve insertion of personal aesthetic judgments in violation of NPOV/NOR policies, "biting a newbie" w/regard to his edit summary regarding editor "P crosley", citing a supposed policy regarding the editing of featured articles which he has repeatedly proposed without ever approaching consensus, and the inclusion a personal attacks in an edit summary (in this case, addressed to me). The editor effectively claims ownership of the article, and has repeatedly engaged in sterile edit warring rather than providing reliable sourcing information on disputed points or making good faith efforts to reach consensus.
    • The 3RR rule "states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions on a single Misplaced Pages article within 24 hours of their first reversion." It applies to "undoing the actions of another editor." It does not require that the reversions be confined to a single, discrete, textual segment . In this case, we have four reverts to the same article in just over 19 hours, intended to undo the work of editors over two years and restore a much older text (which the user has periodically reinserted). Monicasdude 00:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    I find myself confused by the content changes in the reverts, and cannot find any relevent discussion on the article Talk page or that user's talk page. The above reads something like a user conduct rfc. I would like a more experienced admin to take a look at this. Jkelly 01:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a frivolous accusation and it will be added to User:Monicasdude's violations when the planned RfAR on him gets rolling. The edits he lists are not reversions, as any review of the diffs will show. JDG 03:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • One could not ask for a clearer demonstration of user:JDG's bad faith than his claim that the edits involved (which his edit summaries explicitly describe as "restoring" previous versions) were not reverts. The first edit listed removed all of user:P crosley's changes to the article's introduction ; the second wiped out my corrections to the chronology of Dylan's signing with Columbia Records ; the third wiped out changes by me and by editor:Lulu to the article intro, again restoring user:JDG's preferred text ; and the fourth reversion, to an even older text, wipes out changes by anon user:149.99.134.207 . (The last is harder to follow, given the intervening edits, but the ninth paragraph, beginning "At the time his voice" is the text JDG reverted to, removing the anon editor's contributions. All of the edits reverted by JDG were good faith and non-vandalous. The edits listed are paradigmatic reverts, and user:JDG's denial that they are reverts is a clear signal of the need for intervention: the user is refusing to abide by established, clearly applicable Misplaced Pages policies. Monicasdude 06:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

    User Chadbryant

    User Chadbryant has repeatedly vandalised the user pages of other Misplaced Pages posters by declaring them to be sockpuppets; however, he has no backing from Misplaced Pages administrators on this, nor does he have any justification (i.e. IP addresses, etc.). All he has is a suspicious mind and on here that is not good enough. He is also vandalising a sub page of American Dad; this can be seen in the Contributions section of his user page. He appears to have taken some sort of online grudge into Misplaced Pages, and as a result he will repeatedly revert edits or remove them entirely with false claims of "vandalism" or "harrassment." I would appreciate it if someone who reads this could please look into his behavior and see if any additional action against him is warranted. From looking at his histories, it appears that this may be so. Thank you in advance. Doctor Strangelove

    Not the place for this, you probably want AN/I Jtkiefer ---- 05:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


    User:72.140.235.202

    Three revert rule violation on Mongoloid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 72.140.235.202 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by:Saikiri~ 07:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User created a new page, Mongoloids to paste his preferred version of the Mongoloid article on. He then went about using piped links to covertly redirect several links to Mongoloid to the Mongoloids article. (Mongoloids has since been converted to a redirect. I think he hasn't noticed.)
    • Had never been warned. I put the first 3RR tag on the talk page, and moved the unsourced addition to the article to the talk page for sourcing. Jkelly 07:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:216.249.57.79

    Three revert rule violation on Vaughn Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    216.249.57.79 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Additionally this user has edited both User:Akamad and my user page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    User has been warned that if he vandalizes again, he will be blocked so we'll see how he/she responds to that.--MONGO 09:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Ferkelparade

    Three revert rule violation on November 18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).Oops...I just realized I broke the 3RR rule on that article. These were not clear vandalism reverts but arguably rather part of a content dispute (the 3rd revert is not part of the same dispute but also not a clear case of vandalism), so please slap me on the wrist if you think it's necessary. Ferkelparade π 20:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

    Reported by: myself, Ferkelparade π 20:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Just revert yourself and *bang* the 3RR violation evaporates. ] 21:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    A surprisingly easy solution - I just did that, might have thought of that myself :P -- Ferkelparade π 10:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:152.91.9.124

    Three revert rule violation on Pseudoscience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 152.91.9.124 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --Prosfilaes 06:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Chadbryant and User:RSPW Coaster

    KTVX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - dig that edit history. Protected, added to WP:LAME and 24 hours each for really stupid 3RR violation - David Gerard 08:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

    Note: There's apparently been some sockpuppetry going on. I haven't time to look right now, but it might be severe enough to warrant investigation - David Gerard 08:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:EaZyZ99 and sock User:69.245.221.209

    Three revert rule violation on

    This page is about the human female reproductive system. For the female reproductive systems of other organisms, see reproductive system.
    This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
    Find sources: "3RRArchive9" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (November 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
    Reproductive system of female humans
    Female reproductive system (human)
    Pictorial illustration of the female reproductive system and nearby organs
    Details
    Identifiers
    Latinsystema genitale femininum
    Anatomical terminology
    Vulva 1. Vulva: 2. Labia majora; 3. Labia minora; 4. Vestibule; 5. Clitoris: (with 6. Glans and 7. Body). 8. Bulb of vestibule
    9. Vagina: 10. Hymen; 11. Lumen; 12. Wall; 13. Fornix (lateral)
    14. Uterus: Parts: 15. Cervix; 16. Body and 17. Fundus. 18. Orifices: external and internal; 19. Cervical canal; 20. Uterine cavity; Layers: 21. Endometrium; 22. Myometrium and 23. Perimetrium
    24. Fallopian tube: 25. Isthmus; 26. Ampulla; 27. Infundibulum; 28. Fimbriae (with 29. Fimbria ovarica)
    30. Ovary
    31. Visceral pelvic peritoneum: 32. Broad ligament (with 33. Mesosalpinx; 34. Mesovarium and 35. Mesometrium)
    Ligaments: 36. Round; 37. Ovarian; 38. Suspensory of ovary
    Blood vessels: 39. Ovarian artery and vein; 40. Uterine artery and veins; 41. Vaginal artery and veins
    Other: 42. Ureter; 43. Pelvic floor (Levator ani); 44. Femoral head; 45. Hip bone; 46. Internal iliac vessels (anterior branches); 47. External iliac vessels; 48. Abdominal cavity

    The human female reproductive system is made up of the internal and external sex organs that function in the reproduction of new offspring. The reproductive system is immature at birth and develops at puberty to be able to release matured ova from the ovaries, facilitate their fertilization, and create a protective environment for the developing fetus during pregnancy. The female reproductive tract is made of several connected internal sex organs—the vagina, uterus, and fallopian tubes—and is prone to infections. The vagina allows for sexual intercourse, and is connected to the uterus at the cervix. The uterus (or womb) accommodates the embryo by developing the uterine lining.

    The uterus also produces secretions which help the transit of sperm to the fallopian tubes, where sperm fertilize the ova. During the menstrual cycle, the ovaries release an ovum, which transits through the fallopian tube into the uterus. If an egg cell meets with sperm on its way to the uterus, a single sperm cell can enter and merge with it, creating a zygote. If no fertilization occurs, menstruation is the process by which the uterine lining is shed as blood, mucus, and tissue.

    Fertilization usually occurs in the fallopian tubes and marks the beginning of embryogenesis. The zygote will then divide over enough generations of cells to form a blastocyst, which implants itself in the wall of the uterus. This begins the period of gestation and the embryo will continue to develop until full-term. When the fetus has developed enough to survive outside the uterus, the cervix dilates, and contractions of the uterus propel it through the birth canal (the vagina), where it becomes a newborn. The breasts are not part of the reproductive system, but mammary glands were essential to nourishing infants until the modern advent of infant formula.

    Later in life, a woman goes through menopause and menstruation halts. The ovaries stop releasing eggs and the uterus stops preparing for pregnancy.

    The external sex organs are also known as the genitals, and these are the organs of the vulva, including the labia, clitoris, and vestibule. The corresponding equivalent among males is the male reproductive system.

    External genitalia

    External human female genitalia

    Vulva

    Main article: Vulva
    Labeled anatomy of the human vulva and nearby structures

    The vulva is of all of the external parts and tissues and includes the following:

    Internal genitalia

    Labeled illustration of the human internal female genitalia (sagittal view)
    Schematic drawing of reproductive organs (frontal view)

    Vagina

    Main article: Vagina

    The vagina is a fibromuscular (made up of fibrous and muscular tissue) canal leading from the outside of the body to the cervix of the uterus. It is also referred to as the birth canal in the context of pregnancy. The vagina accommodates a penis during sexual intercourse. Semen containing spermatozoa is ejaculated from the penis at orgasm, into the vagina potentially enabling fertilization of the egg cell (ovum) to take place.

    Cervix

    Main article: Cervix

    The cervix is the neck of the uterus, the lower, narrow portion where it joins with the upper part of the vagina. It is cylindrical or conical in shape and protrudes through the upper anterior vaginal wall. Approximately half its length is visible, the remainder lies above the vagina beyond view. The vagina has a thick layer outside and it is the opening where the fetus emerges during delivery.

    Uterus

    Main article: Uterus

    The uterus or womb is the major female reproductive organ. The uterus provides mechanical protection, nutritional support, and waste removal for the developing embryo (weeks 1 to 8) and fetus (from week 9 until the delivery). In addition, contractions in the muscular wall of the uterus are important in pushing out the fetus at the time of birth.

    The uterus contains three suspensory ligaments that help stabilize the position of the uterus and limits its range of movement. The uterosacral ligaments keep the body from moving inferiorly and anteriorly. The round ligaments restrict posterior movement of the uterus. The cardinal ligaments also prevent the inferior movement of the uterus.

    The uterus is a pear-shaped muscular organ. Its major function is to accept a fertilized ovum, which becomes implanted into the endometrium, and derives nourishment from blood vessels, which develop exclusively for this purpose. The fertilized ovum becomes an embryo, develops into a fetus and gestates until childbirth. If the egg does not embed in the wall of the uterus, the female begins menstruation.

    Fallopian tubes

    Main article: Fallopian tube

    The fallopian tubes are two tubes leading from the ovaries into the uterus. On maturity of an ovum, the follicle and the ovary's wall rupture, allowing the ovum to escape and enter the fallopian tube. There it travels toward the uterus, pushed along by movements of cilia on the inner lining of the tubes. This trip takes hours or days. If the ovum is fertilized while in the fallopian tube, then it normally implants in the endometrium when it reaches the uterus, which signals the beginning of pregnancy.

    Ovaries

    Main article: Ovary

    The ovaries are small, paired gonads located near the lateral walls of the pelvic cavity. These organs are responsible for the production of the egg cells (ova) and the secretion of hormones. The process by which the egg cell (ovum) is released is called ovulation. The speed of ovulation is periodic and impacts the length of a menstrual cycle.

    After ovulation, the egg cell travels through the fallopian tube toward the uterus. If fertilization is going to occur, it often happens in the fallopian tube; the fertilized egg can then implant on the uterus's lining. During fertilization the egg cell plays a role; it releases certain molecules that are essential to guiding the sperm and allows the surface of the egg to attach to the sperm's surface. The egg can then absorb the sperm and fertilization can begin.

    Vestibular glands

    Main articles: Bartholin's gland and Skene's gland

    The vestibular glands, also known as the female accessory glands, are the Bartholin's glands, which produce a mucous fluid for vaginal lubrication, and the Skene's glands for the ejaculation of fluid as well as for lubricating the meatus.

    Function

    The female reproductive system functions to produce offspring.

    In the absence of fertilization, the ovum will eventually traverse the entire reproductive tract from the fallopian tube until exiting the vagina through menstruation.

    The reproductive tract can be used for various transluminal procedures such as fertiloscopy, intrauterine insemination, and transluminal sterilization.

    Oocytes residing in the primordial follicle of the ovary are in a non-growing prophase arrested state, but are capable of highly efficient homologous recombinational repair of DNA damages including double-strand breaks. This capability allows genome integrity to be maintained and offspring health to be protected.

    Development

    Main article: Development of the reproductive system

    Chromosome characteristics determine the genetic sex of a fetus at conception. This is specifically based on the 23rd pair of chromosomes that is inherited. Since the mother's egg contains an X chromosome and the father's sperm contains either an X or Y chromosome, it is the male who determines the fetus' sex. If the fetus inherits the X chromosome from the father, the fetus will be a female. In this case, testosterone is not made and the Wolffian duct will degrade thus, the Müllerian duct will develop into female sex organs. The clitoris is the remnants of the Wolffian duct. On the other hand, if the fetus inherits the Y chromosome from the father, the fetus will be a male. The presence of testosterone will stimulate the Wolffian duct, which will bring about the development of the male sex organs and the Müllerian duct will degrade.

    Clinical significance

    Further information: Vulva disease

    Vaginitis

    Vaginitis is inflammation of the vagina and largely caused by an infection. It is the most common gynaecological condition presented. It is difficult to determine any one organism most responsible for vaginitis because it varies from range of age, sexual activity, and method of microbial identification. Vaginitis is not necessarily caused by a sexually transmitted infection as there are many infectious agents that make use of the close proximity to mucous membranes and secretions. Vaginitis is usually diagnosed based on the presence of vaginal discharge, which can have a certain color, odor, or quality.

    Bacterial vaginosis

    Main article: Bacterial vaginosis

    This is a vaginal infection in women. It differs from vaginitis in that there is no inflammation. Bacterial vaginosis is polymicrobial, consisting of many bacteria species. The diagnosis for bacterial vaginosis is made if three of the following four criteria are present: (1) Homogenous, thin discharge, (2) a pH of 4.5 in the vagina, (3) epithelial cells in the vagina with bacteria attached to them, or (4) a fishy odor. It has been associated with an increased risk of other genital tract infections such as endometritis.

    Yeast infection

    Main article: Vaginal yeast infection

    This is a common cause of vaginal irritation and according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at least 75% of adult women have experienced one at least once in their lifetime. Yeast infections are caused by an overgrowth of fungus in the vagina known as Candida. Yeast infections are usually caused by an imbalance of the pH in the vagina, which is usually acidic. Other factors such as pregnancy, diabetes, weakened immune systems, tight fitting clothing, or douching can also be a cause. Symptoms of yeast infections include itching, burning, irritation, and a white cottage-cheese-like discharge from the vagina. Women have also reported that they experience painful intercourse and urination as well. Taking a sample of the vaginal secretions and placing them under a microscope for evidence of yeast can diagnose a yeast infection. Treatment varies from creams that can be applied in or around the vaginal area to oral tablets that stop the growth of fungus.

    Genital mutilation

    Main article: Female genital mutilation

    There are many practices of mutilating female genitalia in different cultures. The most common two types of genital mutilation practiced are clitoridectomy, the circumcision of the clitoris and the excision of the clitoral prepuce. They can all involve a range of adverse health consequences such as bleeding, irreparable tissue damage, and sepsis, which can sometimes prove fatal.

    Genital surgery

    Main article: Genitoplasty

    Genitoplasty refers to surgery that is carried out to repair damaged sex organs particularly following cancer and its treatment. There are also elective surgical procedures, which change the appearance of the external genitals.

    Birth control

    Main article: Birth control

    There are many types of birth control available to females. Birth control can be hormonal or physical in nature. Oral contraception can assist with management of various medical conditions, such as menorrhagia. However, oral contraceptives can have a variety of side effects, including depression.

    Reproductive rights

    The International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics was founded in 1954 to promote the well-being of women particularly in raising the standards of gynaecological practice and care. As of 2010, there were 124 countries involved.

    Reproductive rights are legal rights related to reproduction and reproductive health. Women have the right to control matters involving their sexuality including their sexual and reproductive health. Violation of these rights include forced pregnancy, forced sterilization, forced abortion and genital mutilation. Female genital mutilation is the complete or partial removal of a female's external genitals.

    History

    It is claimed in the Hippocratic writings that both males and females contribute their seed to conception; otherwise, children would not resemble either or both of their parents. Four hundred years later, Galen identified the source of 'female semen' as the ovaries in female reproductive organs.

    See also

    References

    1. Scoullar, Michelle J. L.; Boeuf, Philippe; Peach, Elizabeth (2021). "Mycoplasma genitalium and Other Reproductive Tract Infections in Pregnant Women, Papua New Guinea, 2015–2017 - Volume 27, Number 3—March 2021 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC". Emerging Infectious Diseases. 27 (3): 894–904. doi:10.3201/eid2703.201783. PMC 7920647. PMID 33622474. Archived from the original on 9 October 2022. Retrieved 9 October 2022.
    2. Ellis, Harold; Mahadevan, Vishy (2013). Clinical anatomy: applied anatomy for students and junior doctors (13th ed.). Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-118-37376-7.
    3. "Female Reproductive System: Structure & Function". Cleveland Clinic. Retrieved 2023-12-19.
    4. "Genital Tract | SEER Training". training.seer.cancer.gov. Retrieved 2023-12-19.
    5. "Fallopian Tubes: Location, Anatomy, Function & Conditions". Cleveland Clinic. Retrieved 2023-12-19.
    6. "Female Reproductive System: Structure & Function". Cleveland Clinic. Retrieved 2023-12-19.
    7. "Ovaries: Anatomy, Function, Hormones & Conditions". Cleveland Clinic. Retrieved 2023-12-19.
    8. Alberts, Bruce; Johnson, Alexander; Lewis, Julian; Raff, Martin; Roberts, Keith; Walter, Peter (2002), "Fertilization", Molecular Biology of the Cell. 4th edition, Garland Science, retrieved 2023-12-19
    9. ^ Stringer JM, Winship A, Zerafa N, Wakefield M, Hutt K (May 2020). "Oocytes can efficiently repair DNA double-strand breaks to restore genetic integrity and protect offspring health". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 117 (21): 11513–11522. doi:10.1073/pnas.2001124117. PMC 7260990. PMID 32381741.
    10. "Details of genital development". Archived from the original on February 25, 2020. Retrieved August 6, 2010.
    11. Egan ME, Lipsky MS (2000). "Diagnosis of Vaginitis". American Family Physician. 62 (5): 1095–104. PMID 10997533. Archived from the original on 6 June 2011. Retrieved 7 July 2020.
    12. ^ Zaino, Richard J.; Robboy, Stanley J.; Bentley, Rex; Kurman, Robert J. (2011). "Diseases of the Vagina". Blaustein's Pathology of the Female Genital Tract. pp. 105–154. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0489-8_3. ISBN 978-1-4419-0488-1.
    13. Iyer, V; Farquhar, C; Jepson, R (2000). Iyer, Vadeihi (ed.). "Oral contraceptive pills for heavy menstrual bleeding". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2): CD000154. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000154. PMID 10796696.
    14. de Wit, AE; Booij, SH; Giltay, EJ; Joffe, H; Schoevers, RA; Oldehinkel, AJ (2020). "Association of Use of Oral Contraceptives With Depressive Symptoms Among Adolescents and Young Women". JAMA Psychiatry. 77 (1): 52–59. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.2838. PMC 6777223. PMID 31577333.
    15. Anwar, Etin. "The Transmission of Generative Self and Women's Contribution to Conception." Gender and Self in Islam. London: Routledge, 2006. 75. Print.

    External links

    Women's health
    Reproductive
    health
    Reproductive
    tract
    Maternal
    health
    Pregnancy
    Childbirth
    Reproductive
    life plan
    Contraception and
    family planning
    Menstruation
    Sexual
    health
    Sexually transmitted
    infections
    Non-reproductive
    health
    Violence
    against women
    Non-communicable
    diseases
    Cancer
    Sociocultural
    factors
  • Poverty
  • Disadvantaged
  • Gender equality
  • Healthcare inequality
  • Gender disparities in health
  • Social determinants of health
  • Reproductive justice
  • Women's empowerment
    • Politics, research
    and advocacy
    United Nations
    United States
    Women's health
    by country
  • China
  • Ethiopia
  • India
  • Russia
  • Birth control in the United States
    • Human systems and organs
    Musculoskeletal system
    Skeletal system
    Joints
    Muscular system
    Circulatory system
    Cardiovascular system
    Lymphatic system
    Nervous system
    Integumentary system
    Haematopoietic and immune systems
    Respiratory system
    Digestive system
    Urinary system
    Reproductive system
    Endocrine system
    Female reproductive system
    Internal
    Adnexa
    Ovaries
    Follicles
    Other
    Oogenesis
    Fallopian tubes
    Ligaments
    Wolffian vestiges
    Uterus
    Regions
    Layers
    Ligaments
    General
    Vestibular glands
    Vagina
    External
    Vulva
    Labia
    Clitoris
    Vestibule
    Blood supply
    Other
    Menstrual cycle
    Events and phases
    Life stages
    Tracking
    Signs
    Systems
    Suppression
    Disorders
    Related events
    Mental health
    Hygiene
    In culture and religion

    . EaZyZ99 (talk · contribs) and 69.245.221.209 (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: Nandesuka 04:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Ghirlandajo

    Three revert rule violation on Katyń massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs):

    Reported by: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • As I can be considered a party to this dispute, I don't want to block him myself. Besides, I am not an expert in judging how serious a 3RR violation is. I'd recommend a short block (about 3h, perhaps) meant to cool him down and realize that further breaking of 3RR is not wise.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Nonsense. The first edit was not a revert but contribution of new stuff which never appeared in the article before. The fourth edit was completely out of line with the previous ones and was intended to fend off a dubious comment by a stray editor. So it makes two reverts instead of four. Even if someone thinks that techinically it is a 3RR violation, it was not intended to spawn edit wars and I have no intention to edit the page any more either today or in the nearest future. --Ghirlandajo 14:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

    There were no 3RR violation here. Please do not waste other people's time to report the 3RR that were not. That said, I take no position at the article's content dispute. --Irpen 15:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

    I rechecked and I stand by my statement that there was no 3RR violation here. --Irpen 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:Halibutt

    Three revert rule violation on Battle of Wołodarka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Halibutt (talk · contribs):

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    If Piotrus resorts to such dirty tricks as above to further his recent anti-Ghirlandajo quest, I may point out that his friend Halibutt violated 3RR more than once in my experience of conversing with him. Every time he went unpunished. It's time to put an end to such an impunity. --Ghirlandajo 14:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

    Please report current violations, not two month old histories. Vsmith 14:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    While Ghirlandajo's late reporting seems a bit close to proving a point, he is right to point out that quite often a double standard is being applied about 3RR violations. --Thorsten1 15:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    Not every 3RR violation is reported and of these reported not every is "punished". This is left to administrator's discretion. It's not a question of double standards. --Wojsyl 18:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

    User:193.170.48.178

    Three revert rule violation on September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 193.170.48.178 (talk · contribs):



    Reported by: User:Chaosfeary

    Comments:

    User:Anna2005

    Three revert rule violation on Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anna2005 (talk · contribs):

    • Previous version reverted to: Not sure. Looks like he cut-and-pasted his preferred sections in, rather than doing a wholesale revert as such.
    • 1st revert: 08:22
    • 2nd revert: 10:50
    • 3rd revert: 11:31
    • 4th revert: 11:41
    • 5th revert: 11:59

    Reported by: SarekOfVulcan 20:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Suspected sockpuppet of User:Lightbringer, who is indefinitely banned from editing Freemasonry-related topics.


    Category: