Page: Atrangi Re (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Yuvraj rathore2424 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 13:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC) ""
3. 12:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC) ""
4. 03:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC) ""
5. 15:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC) "/* Cast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continued over several days, their response to my warning [1] was not inspiring. Ravensfire (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page: HDMI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2003:C9:C714:2000:B6:261D:4C02:AE91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [3] (partial restore of initial edit) [4] (made new edit at the same time), both reverted by me
2. [5] (user restored both) [6] (made new edit), both reverted by me
3. [7] [8] (user restored both)

I have stopped reverting now.

Related, while this was going on I also reverted another edit made by a different user a few days ago, and the user being reported also restored that one (without explanation) [9], which was unrelated to their own edits, so they appear to just be undoing whatever I do on that page now.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10] I explained the edit warring policy to them in the talk page discussion (which they have responded to), since they are an anon with no talk page. Sorry if this is improper.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [12]

Comments:

• User made edits I did not agree with
• I reverted them and explained the issue.
• They restored them.
• I reverted again, and invited them to open a talk page discussion instead of restoring.
• They restored again, but they did post on the talk page.
• I reverted and replied to the talk page, and also told them about the edit war policy and that they should not restore their edits until a consensus has been reached.
• They restored again, and replied to the talk page.

I stopped reverting at this point. Talk page discussion is still ongoing. Don't think a ban is necessary but an admin revert and comment might help them realize that they need to follow editing policy and stop restoring their disputed edits while the discussion is unresolved, it isn't an optional thing. GlenwingKyros (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has not edited since you filed this report. I hope they will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, although I suspect they won't have any interest in continuing the discussion as long as their edits remain the current revision. GlenwingKyros (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: No action, since neither party broke 3RR. But if either side continues to revert, blocks are possible. It appears the wording could easily be tweaked to satisfy the goals of both parties ('additional features' versus 'optional features'). Consider making some proposals on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can the article at least be restored to original state while discussion is ongoing? — Glenwing (talk) 10:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Merseyrail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Wisdom-inc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC) ""
2. 14:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC) "Reverted. No personal opinion. Not this fella again! Find out what Merseyrail and City Line is."
3. 12:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC) "restored superior explanation."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor has been a problem for several weeks on this and other rail articles exhibiting WP:OWN behaviour. Today he/she has had engagement on both his/her talk page and also on the article's talk page, but has persisted in pushing his/her personal opinion on how the article should read. The editor has also resorted to personal attacks on User:Kitchen Knife along with childish threats, e.g. "UP to your tricks again Sunshine. If you keep harassing me you can be dealt with." This editor really needs time out on the naughty step to reflect on his/her bad behaviour. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this kind of behaviour is likely to wane.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has been fully protected for one week by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also a complaint filed at ANI on December 10 about edit warring at Merseyrail. EdJohnston (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user seems intent on carryon [[13]] --Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Macrakis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [20]

Comments:
{{This editor has been repeatedly editing their preferred version of the article regardless of opinions of all other editors who disagree with him/her; this is classic edit warring, as Wikipedia says, "regardless of whether those edits are justifiable." All editors involved in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Doctor_of_Osteopathic_Medicine's talk page's "Lead" section has worked around to argue back and forth with this editor, but the editor, who started that discussion, has persisted in pushing his/her personal opinion on how the article should read and undermined the other 2 editors involved in the discussion. The editor also admonished other views, e.g. "using US as an adjective is clumsy." This editor stopped participating in active discussion and has since then cancelling edits from other editors. We hope this kind of conflicting behavior is apt for this report.ORdeDocsaab (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)}}[reply]

The four reverts listed above are spaced across almost a month, so clearly not a 3R violation. However, I'm blocking the OR for a rather obvious case of tendentious agenda editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Timeline of major crimes in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 49.178.82.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062941260 by Meters (talk)"
2. 08:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC) "Obviously a major crime. It's an important building."
3. 07:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1062933792 by Melcous (talk) It is neutral now."
4. 07:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC) "Reliable sources"
5. 09:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Timeline of major crimes in Australia."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC) "/* contested edit re Parliament building in Canberra */ clarify: source says it is "Old" Parliament Building"

Comments:

A contested edit that has been removed five times by three different editors. The first attempts to add this were WP:POV in that the protestors were called "savages", but the issue of whether this should be considered a major crime was already raised in the first undo by user:Nickm57. User:Melcous undid the second POV addition. The fifth attempt to add this was after the user had been warned for 3RR, and after the talk page discussion had started. Meters (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Warnborough College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ash01.francis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, as this is purely PROMO editing, though Talk:Warnborough_College#This_article_was_mentioned_in_a_Slate_podcast is relevant.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [27]

Comments:
A new SPA editor making promotional (and in some cases incorrect) edits on an article that has previously suffered from the same COI problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Kite (talk • contribs) 12:02 31 December, 2021 (UTC)

Even after warning and notice of this discussion, SPA again reverted to restore their version, without discussion. Banks Irk (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Climate of Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Weatherextremes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29] 11:27
2. [30] 11:44
3. [31] 11:59

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [32] 11:39, his talk page
2. [33] 11:52, the page's talk page
3. [34] 11:59, warning in his talk page

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [35]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [36]

Comments:

This user changed the last stable version of the page yesterday without any kind of source Here today, I have inserted the previous data and I've inserted the citation needed tag. Then this user threw up a random source in Greek that it doesn't say anything related to his claims, so I have tried to talk with him in the talk page here and then I've inserted the official Hellenic National Meteorological Service official Climate Atlas of Greece here backing up the previous WP:STABLE version of the page as well.

Turns out this user, which has a background of edit wars, simply didn't care and started an edit war to revert everything I write without even engaging in the talk page before reverting first, at 11:27 UTC he wrote "see the talk page" while he didn't write anything in the talk page until 11:42 in the meantime I've warned him in his personal talk page and I've also done a ping on him but he just wants to impose his own WP:POV and I've warned him 4 times, one in the edit diffs, recommending to solve this and he didn't try anything but just kept reverting, another one in the own page's talk page and twice in his own talk page (where he fastly deleted both of my warnings) I don't know how to act with this user after I recommended him to talk, to respect WP:CYCLE and to be more Encyclopedical instead of just trying to impose WP:NPOV but it seems like I'm talking to a wall because this user doesn't care about any warning and he doesn't even take recommendations of any advice I've gave him in his own talk page or in that page's talk page.

Also, this is not exactly a content dispute, as shown above, he firstly changed that temperature claim without any kind of source. When I did insert an official source, he came with a random source (that's in Greek and doesn't back up the claims he write to) I have tried to explain in the article's talk page even if we took that source as useful, that data can't even be reached without getting too specifical, abd 6-7 years of unofficial data are not climate normals whilst Rhodes does have long term official data and I've inserted the official HNMS Climate Atlas which he deliberately ignores and says "it's not valid, it's extrapolated" (albeit being the only Greek official data) just to put his own sources again where it doesn't back up anything he claims. I have engaged in the talk page in a friendly tone trying to make him make constructive edits, he reverted, I've inserted an official source that's backing up the previous stable version, he reverted again, I've warned him in his talk page, yet he reverted again. I don't know what else to do, I even said "please stop because you're on the edge of an edit war and you're at just 1 edit to break the WP:3RR, expose your arguments on the talk page" yet he lasted 2 minutes to revert again thus breaking 3 reverts in the Climate of Greece page. --TechnicianGB (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a clear content dispute with the editor escalating in order to impose their own POV disregarding any arguments and turning the whole thing into an edit war. The official source is given as per the Lindos article. It is in the interest of the average reader to have the official data from the National Observatory of Athens for Lindos since the area presents a considerable difference from the long term official data shown for Rhodes. This has already been discussed with the editor during the summer of 2021 in the Lindos article.Weatherextremes (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How I'm exactly trying to impose my own POV when you've made a change without any kind of source [Here, yesterday] and then you've just searched for a random source trying to make a point even if your source doesn't even back up your claims?

You have also ignored the official Hellenic National Meteorological Service source [inserted exactly here] to repeat your own claims on the official source (this is your personal opinion and content dispute over an official source) yet you just repeat that the official data is not valid according to yourself and just the source you've presented is valid (based on WP:NPOV) even if your source doesn't even show up the data you claim. You've also broken the 3RR rule. --TechnicianGB (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The HNMS source from the climate atlas is in the article as you will see. What you fail to understand is that I have added on top of that the official source from N.O.A's meteo search database as per the Lindos article to further articulate the huge difference from the rest of the island which admittedly is Greece's warmest area from the official NOA data. Granted, we are talking about a smaller period and this is why you will notice on my last edit on the article I have accurately described the chronological period this refers to. Weatherextremes (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Weatherextremes: The HNMS station of Rhodes shows an annual mean of 18.9ºC so it's not anything "extrapolated" proof: https://web.archive.org/web/20170325112626/http://www.hnms.gr/hnms/english/climatology/climatology_region_diagrams_html?dr_city=Rodos taken from the official HNMS site. Rhodes has to be left there because it's based on official HNMS data, not only by the map itself. You doubt on the map being official data while putting unverifiable data... That's disruptive.

I have left Lindos with that specific quotation, but your source doesn't show anything you claim on, as it's just a Greek source with lots of stations and it doesn't say in any moment that the 2014-2021 mean has been 21.9ºC and nevertheless even if we accept this (which we shouldn't, but I left it to see what other users think) this doesn't remove the fact that you've broken the 3RR even after I warned you several times. --TechnicianGB (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, here is where the core of the content dispute lies. You are trying to generalize the Diagoras airport data to the Lindos official NOA data. We have covered this in the Lindos talk page [37]. Bear in mind that you have multiple edits yourself exactly because you are turning this content dispute into an all out edit war. You did the same in the Seville article recently. Weatherextremes (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to generalize anything except for the fact you've deleted Rhodes with it's official HNMS source (again it said Rhodes, not Lindos) to add Lindos with a source that doesn't back up anything you say, that's disruptive editing because you were changing a reliable source that says what's referenced to against one that doesn't say nor proves what you've changed. Your first change (yesterday) was even unsourced, as proven above. You need to understand that Wikipedia doesn't work like this and also others as well as administrators have warned you in the past. Today you've made an edit war and after breaking the 3RR you always try to solve things up, but you don't try before doing it. The last time you only got warned, but it seems you didn't learn from it. Also, I don't know why you keep mentioning other pages that have no relationship with this 3RR that you've broken today. --TechnicianGB (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I replaced the word Rhodes with Lindos but kept the HNMS source however. I simply added the NOA source to highlight the huge difference between other areas of the island/Greece and Lindos. Again, I would advise you to try first to have a proper discussion in order to find a solution instead of rushing to report me every time. We found a solution in the Seville article, we did the same in Lindos article, the Athens article and we also managed to find a solution on this one at the end. I just ask that you remain calm and engage with me. In the end we always find a solution. We did it in 4 articles Weatherextremes (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Both editors have violated 3RR. I've blocked Weatherextremes for 3 months based on their block history and TechnicianGB for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Parag Agrawal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 43.247.159.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [45]

Comments:

User keeps adding the meaningless and unhelpful phrase "Schooling and Intermediate" to this article. Not a 3RR breach yet (unless they re-revert) but continued edit-warring and refusal to discuss despite warning. Talkpage and analysis of contribs shows that with some exceptions this user has a blatant history of trolling and vandalism. Has already been blocked once (for three months) for vandalism (June 2021) despite sparse edit history. Softlavender (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Doing a block from just the article, so they will find the talk page. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]