Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by El duderino (talk | contribs) at 06:50, 17 December 2011 (→User:Lhb1239 reported by User:El duderino (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Lua error in Module:Navbox at line 535: attempt to get length of local 'arg' (a number value).

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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.

User:Tkuvho reported by User:Thenub314 (Result: warned)

Page: (ε, δ)-definition of limit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tkuvho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I feel this is part of a larger issue, which I will briefly describe. Whenever Tkuvho and I edit the same article we end up in this sort of situation. This has led to me discontinuing my editing of any disputed material at Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach. He seems to knee-jerk revert my edits, such as here. In this case he thought he was removing a comment from a book by Boyer, but never examined closely enough to see I my edit had not added this comment by Boyer, but added soured material from a Historia Mathematica article.

Mostly his edits tend to very focused on removing any negative commentary on the subject of non-standard analysis or infinitesimals in general. (See Talk:Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach and search for smears and incoherent). His recent edits also seem to make famous public critics of the subject seem simply incorrect or possibly irrational , .

Recently I have made attempts to find compromises, but often attempts do not receive any reply. See this and this. Though to be fair, more recently I find if I do not edit the article following him, but raise my issues first he does reply. Not that this has lead to any common ground yet. Thenub314 (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Warned — especially that he can still be blocked for edit warring, regardless of 3RR status. If he continues, please update this thread accordingly (or open a new one). --slakr 22:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Slakr: your belligerent comment is based on erroneous information provided by user Thenub314. Thenub314 misinterpreted the published comment by Hrbacek. I made several attempts to engage him in a discussion of this, most recently on talk:(ε, δ)-definition of limit, without receiving a reply. Tkuvho (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, Thenub314's claims that I seek to "remov any negative commentary on the subject of non-standard analysis" are factually incorrect. You can see for yourself that the information he placed at Elementary_Calculus:_An_Infinitesimal_Approach is still there. Check your facts before issuing belligerent comments. Tkuvho (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Note a further error on Thenub314's part: the four deletions of erroneous material he added did not occur within a 24 hour period, nor within close to a 24 hour period. I understand his frustration with my insisting on accuracy on this page, but filing a false 3RR report does not create a productive atmosphere. Tkuvho (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems I was incorrect in thinking this was strictly withing a 24 hour period. I would like to comment that the I came in this morning to find three further reverts of my edits without discussion at various pages , ,

User:Chrisieboy reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Stale)

Page: Optometry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chrisieboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
Though User has stopped reverting but has already violated 3RR. SMS 21:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a little unfair. In the first revert, I reinstated the words "or ophthalmic opticians" in parentheses and added references; in the second (after the references were deleted), I asked the user to take it to talk. The third revert was due to a further revert (and deletion of references) without edit summary or discussion and the fourth was of the sock. After the second, third and fourth reverts I left the appropriate warnings on the user's talk pages. I have now raised this at WP:AN/I. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Stale Chrisieboy, Jshan was blocked for edit warring. The blocking admin apparently didn't notice that you violated 3RR as well, and you luckily escaped the same block (which was indeed warranted, from what I can tell). This report is definitely stale so there will be no action taken, but please keep 3RR in mind in the future—violations almost always result in a 24 hour block, regardless of who's right or wrong, or who's discussing and not discussing (though attempts at discussion will certainly help your case). Swarm 02:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Jshan826 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: 24h)

Page: Optometry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jshan826 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

SMS 21:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, not by me. Swarm 19:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Various users reported by User:Ramaksoud2000 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Galassi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565, is a piece of organ music attributed to Johann Sebastian Bach.

I am outside observer reporting this as I have observed this. It appears the user has been making claims that this piece is not by Bach. He states that it has been challenged and refers to WP: OR as a basis for his argument. Users have tried to resolve this with him by proposing that they state it has been attributed to Bach but has been challenged but the user being reported has denied this and tries to dominate by edit warring. Has not broken 3RR rule but has been edit warring.

Note — I have doubts and suspicions on this one. The stable version of the page includes the disputed text, yet there's suddenly an influx of extremely new accounts that started edit warring against established editors Galassi (talk · contribs) and Melodia (talk · contribs), who've been on the article for a while, over changing the exact same content block:

• 71.189.19.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sulumore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - created 12/15/2011
• Rolusty33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - created 12/14/2011

I'm thinking that there's some sockpuppetry going on.

--slakr 00:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The user in question(Rolusty33) has admitted to sockpuppetry on my talk page here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramaksoud2000 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let me deal with the sockpuppetry and then take a look at the edit warring incident... Swarm 02:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected I've blocked the sock, but in light of their admission I'm going out on a limb and have given them an only warning for sockpuppetry. Regarding the edit war, I've reverted to the last stable version and protected the article for a few days, and I've instructed Rolusty to prepare and discuss their proposed changes. If there's further trouble with this user, report back here or let me know and I'll block them personally. Swarm 03:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Waleswatcher reported by User:Ramaksoud2000 (Result: warned)

Page: String theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Waleswatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am only an outside observer. The user in question has engaged in an edit war with an ip address instead of reporting the issue to the AIV or elsewhere. The user has not given warnings to those involved and instead of following guidelines, the user broke the 3RR rule by edit warring.

• Warned — feel free to update or re-report if the edit war continues. --slakr 02:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Cossde reported by User:Intoronto1125 (Result: Protected)

Page: Burning of Jaffna library (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cossde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user has removed information from this article with references supporting the things being removed. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected for one week. Although it's tempting to pin the responsibility on the most prominent edit warrior, the fact is that multiple editors have been propagating the edit war over the past week. I'll also add that no one has made an attempt at discussion on the talk page. Thus, article protection is probably going to be more effective than a singular block. Swarm 04:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The editor is also reverting edits on other articles as well (for ex. Tamils Rehabilitation Organisation). Intoronto1125TalkContributions 04:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Same protection applied. Use the talk pages! Swarm 04:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

And note that I've personally warned them on their talk page. Swarm 04:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Intoronto1125 reported by User:Cossde (Result: Already protected)

Page: Tamils Rehabilitation Organisation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Intoronto1125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:Said user has removed categories from this article with references supporting the things being removed. Cossde (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected already— see above section. Swarm 04:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Zenkai251 reported by User:Noformation (Result: )

Page: Talk:Genesis creation narrative (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zenkai251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The edit warring is on a talk page so I'm not sure this applies. The user has been warned about 3RR and refactoring others comments.

Comments:

User had not breached 3RR at the time I posted this report but has now done so. Review recent history and it should be apparent. Update: User has now trolled my talk page with a 3RR warning. Very pointy. Nformation 08:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse Something should be done. He has pushed the patience of the project too far.--Adam in MO Talk

• Oppose No one had the right to revert my edits. Zenkai251 (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  Everyone has the right to revert your edits. You are at 5 reverts now. You are well over the block threshold. Please stop for your own sake before this develops any further.--Adam in MO Talk 09:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This is under discussion at Incidents herel.--Adam in MO Talk 09:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Petrukhina and User:Illyukhina reported by User:Dismas (Result: )

Page: Cherry Jul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Petrukhina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Illyukhina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

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

This case isn't just limited to the article mentioned above. If you take a look at the edit histories of both editors, you'll see that they're locked in an edit war on several articles. They all seem to have something to do with whether or not the Soviet Union should be linked or the country that is now one of the former republics of the Soviet Union.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

There are too many articles involved here. It's a conflict between the two editors about several articles. Not just one.

Comments:

User:Lhb1239 reported by User:El duderino (Result: )

Page: Talk:Mad Men (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lhb1239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

Comments:
User believes the talkpage comments violate WP:NOTAFORUM. I disagree with his interpretation of policy. Regardless, he should not be removing another editor's comments after they've clearly objected. El duderino (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation request filed on El duderino here. Lhb1239 (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

How is that relevant to this report? User:Lhb1239 keeps making these ad hom attacks. El duderino (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring