Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive364

Page: Hanlon's razor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Foolishgrunt isgay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Please see the edit summary on [6]. He knows he's trolling.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:
It's been a while since I've done anything on WP, so this might not even be the right place to report this.

This all started on an Ars Technica forum thread, here: [8] The user knew his edit would be reverted, but someone obviously thinks it's funny to keep re-posting the same nonsense. And the "isgay" suffix is obviously a personal attack on Foolishgrunt.

I'm suggesting locking the page for a few days to keep the page from continued vandalism. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 19:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Already blocked. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Page: Wanessa Camargo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Davi58148687 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: This One [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wanessa_Camargo&oldid=833329655
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wanessa_Camargo&oldid=833329296
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wanessa_Camargo&oldid=833325570
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wanessa_Camargo&oldid=833313700

Davi58148687 has been edit-warring on the Wanessa Camargo article despite being warned.
Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 22:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Page

Adolf Eichmann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

InternetMeme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "That's not an appropriate reason to ignore
   WP:EASTEREGG
   ."
2. 00:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "
   WP:EASTEREGG
   ."
3. 22:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "Your tone is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. I agree that this isn't an easter egg: Rather, it's
   WP:EASTEREGG
   . Please read it."
4. 22:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "WP:EASTEREGG"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on
   TW
   )"
2. 01:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "/* March 2018 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also Admin (it turns out) User:Prodego [9] just told him on his talkpage he was doing things wrong at this page. Acting like a jerk on User:Beyond My Ken's talk as well. [10] Legacypac (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

See Also: ANi they started Legacypac (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi there,

I haven't undone any edits on the Adolf Eichmann page that were made with any legitimate explanation. User:Beyond My Ken gave the following edit summaries for his edits:

1. No explanation
2. It's not a fucking EASTER EGG, it's a context-sensitive link. If you disagree, discuss it on the talk page DO NOT restore
3. you're an idiot
4. Still an idiot

Should I really be taking those edits seriously? I don't think it's fair to consider those as legitimate edits, therefore I don't think my revision of any of them should be counted. Therefore, I have not reverted any legitimate edits, and claims of Edit Warring are unsubstantiated.

Secondly, in the preceding comment above, User:Legacypac falsely claims I was "Acting like a jerk on User:Beyond My Ken's talk". This is an outright lie, as I have been nothing but polite:

1. User:Beyond My Ken gave an edit summary calling me an idiot,
2. I responded with an edit summary stating that this was inappropriate
3. He gave another edit summary calling me an idiot
4. I went top open an issue on the Administrator's Noticeboard, which said that I should try to resolve the conflict on the user's talk page before opening an incident, which I did.

Kind regards, InternetMeme (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

InternetMeme has apparently failed to notice that several reverts back, I re-wrote the disputed language to avoid the (non-)problem that he was edit-warring over; he just went on reverting, without really understanding what he was doing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Your "Edit summaries" of those two re-worded edits consisted of:

1. "You're an idiot", and
2. "Still an idiot".

So the fact that I failed to notice that you'd altered your wording is entirely your fault. Use the "Edit summary" box to actually summarize your edit next time.

InternetMeme (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

There is also a 5th pointless change to the page by InternetMeme just outside the 24 hour window. I hate to see a block but they are not following advice and gave me a nonsensical response to my effort to slow them down. [11] Legacypac (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Note Now that they are talking I'm willing to withdraw this 3RR if User:InternetMeme agrees to withdraw the ANi and stop edit warring. Enough time has been wasted already Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

My response was not at all nonsensical: You tried to say that I claimed the link was an "easter egg", which is not at all what I'm talking about. This is the core of the issue: I'm specifically claiming that it was a ""

WP:EASTEREGG

article.

Also, you're misrepresenting the whole sequence of events by saying "Now that I'm willing to talk": I was the one who initiated the discussion anyway, firstly by posting to

Beyond My Ken

's talk page (as instructed by the "Administrator's noticeboard" guidelines, and which he summarily reverted), and then by opening an incident at the Administrator's noticeboard.

So the statement "Now that they are talking" is completely misleading, making it sound like I'm ignoring the dispute: I've been talking all along.

At any rate, if

Beyond My Ken

apolgizes for calling me an idiot, and if you apologize for saying I was "acting like a jerk" (without providing any evidence), then I'm happy to let the matter go.

InternetMeme (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Most importantly, two of the edits I reverted were summarized as:

1. You're an idiot
2. Still an idiot

It would be absurd to blame anyone for reverting such edits, and therefore neither revision counts towards the 3RR

InternetMeme (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I referenced a post to BMK's talk and your reverting his removal of that post as jerk like behaviour. I stand by my assessment. If you want to keep pushing ghis I can't help you. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

If someone complains about a user's conduct on their talk page, it's totally inappropriate for that user to whitewash the problem by simply reverting the complaint. Do you think it's okay to do that? InternetMeme (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:TPG and you came to my attention because I watch his talkpage. Legacypac (talk

) 02:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Ahh, that's understandable. So now that you're aware that he started the problem by calling me an idiot, you realize that it was completely reasonable for me to point out on his talk page that doing so was inappropriate? InternetMeme (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment -- Excuse me
  pointy reasons. Frankly, I don't even know why you're editing on the project. Your edits seem all very pointy and not constructive. Your insistence on trivial matters while reverting other, established editors is disruptive. Stop it. Dave Dial (talk
  ) 03:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

InternetMeme (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

May I suggest that you raise your concerns at the talk page where multiple users are reverting your edits. Koncorde (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've currently been doing that when revisions of my edits have an explanation. But I feel that revisions that are unworthy of an explanation (or in particular, edits made with an insult in place of a summary) are also unworthy of discussion.

I will always either leave or try to integrate any revision that is made with an explanation

InternetMeme (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

You can't require editors to give detailed edit summaries - and the lack of an edit summary is never a valid reason to revert. You are hardly a newbie - you should know better. Legacypac (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – 31 hours for edit warring by User:Cullen328. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Page: Daily Mail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EdRivers56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Comments: This person is literally stalking not only my edits, but removing entire sections from controversy pages of several wikis

• Note At ANI now NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Page

Daily Mail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kb217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 833420913 by Davey2010 (talk) This is completely false. You have removed entire sections from the controversy area, that have NOTHING to do with what you are stating. The links are directly from the DM as well as other news sources that site that they made those statements."
2. 12:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 833415444 by EdRivers56 (talk) Undoing 3 entire areas removed by EdRivers who is not only STALKING my edits, but also vandalizing several wikis"
3. 09:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 833274550 by EdRivers56 (talk) This is appropriate for this section, because it was DM who did the initial posts. You are stalking all of my edits on every wiki."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (
   TW
   )"
2. 12:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (
   TW
   )"
3. 12:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "/* March 2018 */ +article"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor is edit warring over at Daily Mail and they show no signs of stopping, I've told them there's various ways to get dusputes resolved however instead of resolving they've just kept smacking revert, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Also can someone delete Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EdRivers56 - Myself and EdRivers56 are accused of being socks, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 13:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I deleted that as a completely baseless report before even seeing this. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Ah thanks DoRD much appreciated, 15:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Note At ANI now NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Page

Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

John Dick 78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:23, 31 March 2018 "(I think it is much better and more accurate this way. It is quite hard to say that Greece is transcontinental. It just has a group of islands in Asia.)"
2. 04:56, 31 March 2018 "(Why "historically" and why "nation's"?)"
3. 04:38, 31 March 2018 ""
4. 20:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "There is nothing to discuss. The Aegean Sea is a border between Europe and Asia. This means that the islands off the Asian coast are clearly located in Asia, not in Europe."
5. 20:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "The lead is just wrong without the reference to the Asian part of Greece. Accept the fact that Greece is a transcontinental country in the same way as Spain."
6. 20:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "Why "keep it clean"? Look at the Spain article. It has all the transcontinental information in the lead. Get over it and accept the fact that Lesbos, Chios, Samos, Kos, Rhodes etc are not located in Europe."
7. Consecutive edits made from 09:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC) to 10:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 09:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "you've heard what?"
   2. 10:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "Is Lesbos in Europe? Is Samos in Europe? Is Kos in Europe? Is Kastellorizo in Europe?? Just look at the map. Greece has islands in Asia, like Spain has islands in Africa. Get over it."
8. Consecutive edits made from 07:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC) to 07:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 07:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC) "Eastern Aegean Islands are in Asia, not in Europe."
   2. 07:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuous, rapid-fire edit-warring against past consensus. Refuses to discuss. Please see the edit-summary of his/her latest revert. Dr. K. 21:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Page: Lawrence Liang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chopps2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

Comments:
SPA has continued to edit-war and add contentious material to a BLP without attempting any discussion on the talk page. SPA should be blocked and the page semi-protected by another admin. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected By Swarm NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Bardale&diff=833263408&oldid=833263335
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Bardale&oldid=833263190
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Bardale&oldid=833262917
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Bardale&oldid=833262851

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:El_Bardale [diff]

Comments:
This user has been warned on their talk page for their edits. They have deleted valid sources for their tribal agenda as indicated in their comments on their edits , quoted here"There is no Gadabursi settlement in Gabiley District. Mayor and vice mayor of El Bardale are reer Hareed so the town isn't shared. Stop vandalizing or ill edit Gadabursi pages with my sources." This user has a clear tribal agenda trying to erase the

User:Miledisco did not break 3RR at Tog Wajaale, but it appears that User:Aqooni has been reverting steadily since 29 March. There might still be time for him to avoid a block, if he will promise to wait for talk page consensus before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

On that page

Gadabursi presence on that page. We also did consensus on my talk page with a third user present ( See impartial moderator) (talk) . My main issue was User:Miledisco completely disregarding the discussion on the talk page and deleting the sources. They already received a warning for edit warning.Aqooni (talk

) 05:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Filer User:Aqooni blocked 48 hours per my above comment. I'm also leaving a warning for User:Linkjan2014. The relative numbers of residents from various tribes in individual towns may not be a matter that requires a statement in Wikipedia, especially in cases where the sources are poor. Be careful about importing personal causes into Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Page

Kyle Kashuv (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 833495569 by
   TW
   )"
2. 22:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Attacks and Criticism */ Actually, none of these are reliable source either. Removed per
   WP:BLPSOURCES
   ."
3. 22:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Shooting survivor */ Sorry, but this is not a reliable source and can't be used for a
   WP:BLPSOURCES
   ."
4. Consecutive edits made from 12:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC) to 12:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 12:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Shooting survivor */ The Daily Mail is not a reliable source and the Miami Herald doesn't support this content. Removed per
      WP:BLP
      ."
   2. 12:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "Supporting the 2nd Amendment is not noteworthy, otherwise we would have about 320 million biographies. Copy editing. Removed excessive and non-encyclopedic quotes."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Article is under discretionary sanctions status. Edit warring over content and sources, at least one source he claims is not RS, actually is (Daily Caller). Gutted article in question and then nominated it for deletion -- has been edit warring at it since. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I assert that my reverts were

WP:3RRBLP exceptions, as evinced in my edit summaries. The sources cited for the material in question are widely regarded as poor sources for factual material, especially concerning living people. Some of them have been involved in spreading conspiracy theories about living people.- MrX

🖋 23:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Winkelvi, your diff 2 and diff 3 count as one revert (together also with this). So that's three reverts, not four. And even apart from that, I'm inclined to exonerate MrX as the article is a BLP and the material he removed was poorly sourced. Bishonen | talk
  23:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC).

And the discretionary sanctions status does not apply, either, Bishonen? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

WP:BLPN, as I finally did here.- MrX

🖋 23:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:AE is the place to ask for sanctions, invoking the discretionary sanctions for either American politics or BLPs, or both. I don't for my part regard Mr X's editing as disruptive, but try AE if you like. Bishonen | talk

23:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC).

I was asking for clarification, now you've given it. I'm not asking for sanctions, nor am I interested in forum shopping. If it's settled, it's settled. I have no desire to see anyone's head on a stake. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment KyleKashuvForGAStatus (talk · contribs) who was causing the problem has been blocked indefinitely so this could be closed. MarnetteD|Talk 02:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Page: Keep It Spotless (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jaysonrivera787321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]
5. [29]
6. [30]
7. [31]
8. [32]
9. [33]
10. [34]
11. [35]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Persistent addition of creator not in credits. Then when another user added a creator mentioned in one of the sources, this user continued—and is still continuing—to change it back to the what they want. Their only effort at discussion, if you want to call it that, was asking me why the hell I removed their edit. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see User talk:IJBall#Keep It Spotless for additional context. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Also User talk:General Ization#Why. General Ization ^Talk 03:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Page: 2017 Catalan general strike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 83.54.127.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:05, 29 March 2018
2. 23:03, 31 March 2018
3. 07:42, 1 April 2018
4. 08:04, 1 April 2018
5. 09:19, 1 April 2018
6. 09:32, 1 April 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link and link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff. User keeps ignoring calls to resolve dispute on talk page, though.

Comments:
User keeps engaging in edit warring despite calls for him to stop and engage in discussion in article's talk page. Looking at the edit summaries, it looks like a clear case of

Also seems a case of

the pot calling the kettle black, as he has told another user to not edit war even if you believe you are right when it's himself the one in open violation of 3RR despite the warnings. Impru20 (talk

) 09:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Page

Perth Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

121.215.158.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC) to 13:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
   1. 13:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 12:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC) to 13:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
   1. 12:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC) ""
   3. 13:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC) ""
   4. 13:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Introducing factual errors on
   TW
   )"
2. 13:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on
   TW
   )"
3. 13:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Already blocked – 31 hours by User:Alexf. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Page: Mary, Queen of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Swetoniusz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [38]
2. [39]
3. [40]
4. [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42] (he removed it: [43])

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Ancestry; Why?

Comments:

His warring attitude is also demonstrated by his edits in other pages: (1) Stephen of Anjou: [44], [45], [46]; (2) Mary, Queen of Hungary: [47], [48], [49], [50]. @Surtsicna: could you comment the above report? Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Two Wikipedians, Surtsicna and Borsoka, constantly putting information that mislead readers. I do not why nobody stop them. Instead of them I use academic publications in discussion.

Borsoka use falsely accusation that I do not use talk page [51], then wrote I will not continue this childish debate on this Talk page [52]. See also this. Debate is impossibily with him [53].

Surtsicna wrote falsely that Władysław I of Poland is primary meaning of Władysław I Elbow-High [54].

If two Wikipedians would like to mislead readers, what can I do? They do not use academic publications, they are reverting my editions, they in real do not debate as I show above? How can I improve Wikipedia in this case? Swetoniusz (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, Borsoka did not talk page. He wrote Please show them [academic publications] [55]. Day before I cited academic publication that was base for my editions [56]. What can I do in this case more? I show sources, I use talk page, I improve wikipedia. Two Wikipedians insult me, do not use academic sources, do not read what I wrote in talk page and reverting my editions. Swetoniusz (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, I wrote that I will not continue this childish in reference to his multiple statements that I am a liar. Accusing other editors of lying is one of his way of communication. Yes, I confirm that he has not referred to a single academic work proving that

Władysław I the Elbow-high cannot be mentioned as Władysław I of Poland (which is the subject of the debate). Borsoka (talk

) 14:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

1) As I started debate yesterday [57], Borsoka accussed me that I am ignoring debate [58]. There is only one word to describe your behaviour. 2) The subject of the debate that Władysław I of Poland in academic publication is also Władysław I Herman. I provided it and I provided that editions of Borsoka and Surtsicna mislead readers. As we see, last argument of Borsoka is clearly eristic. Swetoniusz (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

(1) Yes, you ignored the debate and made unilateral changes in other articles based on the same argumentation. There are several words that could describe your behaviour. Your behaviour is usually punished in this community. (2) The subject of the debate is whether Władysław I the Elbow-High could be shortly mentioned as Władysław I of Poland in an ahnentafeln if his name is linked. Borsoka (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

(1) Carry about standard of Wikipedia by using academic sources and do not mislead readers - there are word that describe my behaviour. (2) I see that Borsoka with Surtscina could name Władysław I the Elbow-Eight as Darth Vader, but we can see that a) academic publications with ahnentafeln use his nicknames, b) Władysław I of Poland is unclear name which mislead readers.

There are impossibly to reach consensus as in debate are involved only three peopole and two of them do not use academic sources and of them use. This is a question about principy of Wikipedia. Using academic soures or editing like Borsoka and Surtsicna want? What I should choose? Swetoniusz (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Edit: Borsoka with no reason and no sources reverted my other editions [59]. I feel tired of this. Swetoniusz (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Page

Take Me to the River (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bootzila (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

[60]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC) "Added important details"
2. 15:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC) "Important details about cover versions of the song and their history"
3. 17:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 833628805 by
   talk
   )"
4. 21:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC) "edit content and add footnote to support"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[61]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Page

El Tráfico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

SounderBruce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 833511481 by Walter Görlitz (talk): The "wording" is backed up by reliable sources listed in the section."
2. 00:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 833510497 by
   WP:LOGO
   "
3. 00:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 833510337 by Mo2010 (talk): Removing non-free images"
4. 00:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 833509448 by Walter Görlitz (talk): BRD; by virtue of being a new expansion team in LA, it is necessary to explain the context behind LA's soccer history"
5. 00:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 833505944 by 23.243.96.163 (talk): referenced in multiple sources"
6. Consecutive edits made from 21:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC) to 22:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 21:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 833489000 by Themonkeyboy91 (talk): Accessed on that date originally"
   2. 21:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ ref"
   3. 22:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Moniker */ derby and refs"
7. Consecutive edits made from 20:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC) to 21:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 20:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "adding section"
   2. 20:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "/* top */ result"
   3. 20:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "refs"
   4. 21:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "result"
   5. 21:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "summary"
   6. 21:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "fan activities"
   7. 21:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "SounderBruce moved page
      Draft:El Tráfico to El Tráfico
      : ready for mainspace"
   8. 21:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "/* top */ rm template"
   9. 21:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "/* References */ categories"
   10. 21:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "/* References */ regional navbox"
   11. 21:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ adding reference"
   12. 21:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "/* top */ moving refs"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Unconstructive edits by SounderBruce */ new section"

Comments:

He doesn't seem to think that his edits are poor and wants his version of the article to stand. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Going straight to AN without even reading my talk page reply (which I was in the middle of posting) is a bit hasty, no? And the reverts to Mo2010's edits were simply removing non-free logos from the infobox, per precedent set at nearly every other football rivalry article here. The consecutive edits were made while this article was in draftspace and was being developed, so there's no leg to stand on there. As for the dispute we have, which hasn't crossed three reversions, I'd refer to my talk page reply and the references in the article (mainly this LA Times article) from which I derived my information. SounderBruce 01:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks like this dispute may be over. If not, a spell of article protection may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Seven reverts in less than four hours and we look the other way? If this isn't clear, unmitigated and unjustifiable edit warring I don't know what is. If SounderBruce doesn't get blocked for this I will simply point to this example if I'm ever brought to 3RR again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll add that most of the reverts were uncontroversial: my two reverts of Mo2010 followed 3RRNO sec. 5 (removal of clear copyright violations); my revert of IP 23.243.96.163 was restoring a sentence that is referenced from a reliable source; and my revert of Themonkeyboy91 was restoring the original accessdate in a reference that was changed without an explanation. I'll concede that the reverts of Walter Görlitz's mass deletion were controversial and warranted talk page discussion. Would rather discuss this calmly instead of clamoring for blocks and page protection. SounderBruce 07:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Result:
  WP:DR to get agreement on whatever is still in dispute. Since the war is not continuing, a block would not be preventive. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 16:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Now I understand. 3RR is irrelevant and anyone can edit war until an edit warring noticeboard entry is made. Provided that no edit warring continues after that point, the previous action was not actually an edit war. Please update 3RR to address that error in its explanation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

And another revert just now Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Per his talk page, User:SounderBruce has agreed to take a break from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [62]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [63] There has not been any conses on talk page for this content. The Editor seems to be on a mission to include on every gun article to show at some in the past the weapon was used in a crime, this is absured, were does it end.
2. [64] This content has no merit to be on article, with a crime commited almost 20 years ago.
3. [65] I have started a conversation on this content. It brings no WP:NPOV to the articl, that a crime was commited almost 20 years ago using this particular weapon as apposed to any other weapon.
4. [66] Please stop your disruptive editing . The heading with one short statment that gun was used in a crime (27 years ago) is not notable and bring no neutrality to the article.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

Attempts to discuss on user talk page: [68] [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Permalink

Comments:

Several editors attempted to discuss this on User talk:72bikers, but the user has removed these comments as "nonsense" and continued to revert. –dlthewave ☎ 16:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Holding. Asked 72bikers to reply here. This might lead to discretionary sanctions being levied. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Continued editing, including a revert on another gun-related article, without response. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [70][71] (reverting Nocturnalnow)
2. [72][73][74][75] (reverting User:70.49.231.184)
3. [76] (reverting Katy )

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: multiple talk page discussions over several weeks at

Comments:

This has actually been going on for quite some time, and has been the subject of quite a bit of discussion at

From March 12th. Nothing in regards to the claims you've filed here. Nixon Now (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The IP is a single purpose account whose only purpose seems to be to edit war at

Doug Ford Jr. and appears to be an existing editor who has logged out to avoid scrutiny. The third editor, User:Katy Park is a brand new account and appears to be a sock puppet. Nixon Now (talk

) 22:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I really don't want to be dragged into this. I am generally more interested in video games that politics. You guys can have fun with this one, I'm out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katy Park (talk • contribs) 22:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Katy Park: it's interesting that a brand new account would be able to issue template warnings and make references to Wikipedia policies in their edit comments. Do you have any other more established Wikipedia accounts you'd like to disclose or should I request a CheckUser be run on your account? Nixon Now (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

And looking at their edit histories I see that User:Katy Park and User:Curly Turkey share an interest in video games. Nixon Now (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of socking, Nixon Now? My edits to video game articles account for barely a rounding error in my nearly 90,000-edit edit history. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm accusing the IP and Katy Park of being socks. The fact that you and Katy share interests is interesting but not conclusive without a CheckUser. Nixon Now (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

What's "interesting" is how you keep playing with words like this. Your comment demonstrates the bad faith you've been engaging in all along—only making you look that much more guilty of POV-pushing editwarring on that page. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Given that I have been restoring the consensus wording you should reconsider your POV allegations in light of your own editing. Nixon Now (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

"in light of your own editing"?!? First you imply I'm socking, and now you're trolling that there's something suspicious (but unnamed) about my editing. You've been doing this all over the talk page as well. Are you hoping this

FUD will draw away from your editwarring and POV-pushing? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble!

03:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You've consistently edited against consensus, pushing your own POV, and been obstructive and rude in your comments, continually engaged in personal attacks, and been uncivil even to the point of swearing.[77] Nixon Now (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

That's you're evidence? Meanwhile we have actual diffs of your disruption here on the page. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It's clear evidence of your incivility. As for the reversions, you haven't denied that the IP user or the new user who were reverted appear to be socks. You also haven't shown a warning or attempt to resolve the dispute made during the period in question - you had to reach back several weeks for a warning and make vague reference to ongoing Talk page discussions that occurred outside of the time period in question. And while you claim repeatedly that I am POV pushing, the wording I've reverted to is neutral. Repeating an untruth does ad nauseum does not make it true, it only shows that you're violating

WP:AGF over and over again. Nixon Now (talk

) 04:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This is one long non sequitur—and the "incivility" is your evidence-free accusation that I've been socking. If this continues after your editwarring has been dealt with, we'll continue at ANI. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

No

WP:FORUMSHOP ping. Nixon Now (talk

) 09:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is for your editwarring, there is for your other disruptions. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

A shared interest in 16th century Austrian badger taxidermy would be suspicious. An interest in video games is simply indicative of living post-1978 in a country with an electricity supply. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It's clear the IP and Katy Park are socks. Whose socks we can't say without a CU being done. Nixon Now (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

If you are sure it is clear then why not put in a SPI case and see what that turns up? (Just don't complain if what it turns up is a boomerang.) --DanielRigal (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Done, but I'm not sure it's an acceptable request without naming a suspected sockpuppeteer. Nixon Now (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Right, so as I thought SPI was the wrong venue as I can't name a suspected sockpuppeteer. @DanielRigal: do you have any suggestions for what the appropriate venue would be? Nixon Now (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

To summarize, I had and have a good faith belief that the IP and User:Katy Park are sockpuppets given their editing and given the fact that editing of that article has been plagued by socks (see User:Soulspinr). It is my understanding that socks are to be reverted on sight and that such reversions don't count towards 3RR. I've stated my good faith belief that the two editors are socks several times and the complainant has neither refuted it nor even disagreed with it (other than stating he is not the sockpuppets). Nixon Now (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Note At ANI now.
  WP:CLOP as most of the sentence was lifted from the source. NeilN ^{talk to me}
  14:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• I should add that User: Katy Park is now confirmed to be a sockpuppet of Soulspinr. Nixon Now (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• The IP has also been confirmed as a sockpuppet.Nixon Now (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Nixon Now: Small correction: IP's aren't "confirmed" to be socks of registered editors. "Confirmed" has a special meaning when dealing with socks and it relates to when a checkuser confirms registered accounts are sock masters/puppets of other registered accounts by using technical evidence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Involved admin note - I suggest this be closed with a warning or with no action. The revision history of the article in question is a mess thanks to disruptive editing by the sockpuppets, there are various POV warriors screaming over things being added (or removed) which have been present in (or absent from) the article for years, nobody can really tell who added what or who reverted who, and blocking one editor in the ongoing dispute isn't going to help matters. If anyone feels that the present activity is disruptive they should be requesting full protection; it has worked on this article in the past. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector: When I fill in a result like "At ANI" I mean no action will be taken here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Understood, I thought you were just making a note for a future patrolling admin. I guess I should leave a note like this at ANI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This whole thing--Biografer (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Tried to convince him to resort to constructive editing--Biografer (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• disruptive editing. Biografer, please be a bit more judicious when labeling edits vandalism. Removal of content with a semi-plausible edit summary [78] may be disruptive, but not vandalism. NeilN ^{talk to me}
  16:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @NeilN: Thanks for the warning but if you look closely I called his edit vandalism because he didn't provide an edit summary. Take a look here.--Biografer (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Biografer: Here --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
      • @NeilN: Now I see what went wrong, sorry. Majority of times I meet people who just blatantly remove content without edit summaries (that was his first 3 edits). Its my second day fighting OR here. :) Perhaps, I supposed to have filed a report on that instead?--Biografer (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
        • @
          WP:TWINKLE as it makes reporting much easier. --NeilN ^{talk to me}
          19:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
          • @NeilN: Sounds good, but how do I get it?--Biografer (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
            • Let's continue this on your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Page

Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

John Dick 78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC) "But you know that I'm right, don't you??"
2. 21:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC) "I know I have many people on my side."
3. 21:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 833884573 by Hazhk (talk)"
4. 21:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC) "Looks like more people agree with me."
5. 07:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC) "removing unnecessary references"
6. 16:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "I think it is much better and more accurate this way. It is quite hard to say that Greece is transcontinental. It just has a group of islands in Asia."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Eastern Aegean Islands are in Asia, not in Europe */ comment"
2. 22:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Eastern Aegean Islands are in Asia, not in Europe */ comment"
3. 17:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Eastern Aegean Islands are in Asia, not in Europe */ reply"

Comments:

As soon as block expired, the rapid edit-warring has started anew, including provocative edit-summaries like "But you know that I'm right, don't you?" and "I know I have many people on my side". Original report is still on this noticeboard. Dr. K. 22:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Drmies who was unusually lenient. Must be the good weather. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
• Got a new PC and it's working, Neil. I count my blessings. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Page

Treblinka extermination camp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

167.98.54.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 833935495 by Poeticbent (talk)"
2. 19:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 833855349 by
   peacock words
   "
3. 18:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 833853576 by Freshacconci (talk) don't lie now. you can read the previous edit summaries, can you not? You can understand the relevant links too, can you not?"
4. 18:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 833845348 by Poeticbent (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on
   TW
   )"
2. 22:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on
   TW
   )"
3. 03:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Unencyclopaedic content removed #2 */ comment"
2. 03:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC) "/* Unencyclopaedic content removed #2 */ comment"

Comments:

In addition to edit warring, the editor has engaged in attacking other editors (outlined in the article talk page) and has failed to actually address his edits, other than in disruptive ways. His attempt at a justification for his four reverts on the article talk page was really just a series of insults. freshacconci (✉) 03:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Note that I explained my edits on the edit summary and on the talk page. Note that this editor has not attempted to explain why they reverted, either in edit summaries or on the talk page. Note that instead they lied in edit summaries, on the talk page and now here, absurdly claiming that I did not explain my edits right underneath the explanation. Note finally that the edits I made are absurdly straightforward and obviously necessary. Why is this guy going to such lengths to undo them? It is completely irrational. 167.98.54.59 (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Haha and they post a link to my talk page contributions which they simultaneously deny I even made as their attempt to resolve the dispute! That really is amazingly childish. 167.98.54.59 (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

(Actually, those links go to my comments, not yours). freshacconci (✉) 03:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You've made no attempt to explain your reverts or resolve the dispute. You attempted to pretend otherwise with those links. That is extremely dishonest. 167.98.54.59 (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• As an additional note, my first revert here was for an edit that was an unexplained revert. With that edit, this IP editor began attacking me. His "explanation" only came after being warned for disruptive editing and note that with each edit to the talk page, to my talk page, to his own talk page, and to the article talk page, it came with an insult. One of User:Poeticbent's edits indicated that this IP is a sock for a block-evading editor. I have no idea. My main issue was the disruption with no explanation: this IP address gave no edit summary with the revert of Poeticbent. That's what I was reacting to. With the aggressive insults and 4 reverts, it was clear to me that this was a disruptive editor. freshacconci (✉) 03:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

you chose to attack me. You didn't bother to look at the edit history and see that "poetic bent" had undone two clearly explained edits for no reason. You just decide to undo them for no reason yourself, several times, because you're not here to build an encyclopaedia. You still haven't come up with a reason for reverting and you're still lying in a most disgusting way about me. 167.98.54.59 (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• This IP, the IP 84.252.228.237 and blocked sockpuppet User:Beluuga are apparently the same editor, so it is a case of block evasion. Looking at the article history, all three use the same wording and have the same concerns. And apparently it all leads to this: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. He has a history. A long history. freshacconci (✉) 03:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

More lies.167.98.54.59 (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

In my view, editing so that articles comply with the policies and guidelines of the encyclopaedia is productive, and undoing such edits is disruptive. You can see that this guy believes exactly the opposite. 167.98.54.59 (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Note that under "Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning", the user lists a dishonest claim of vandalism that they made against me. Their whole report is dishonest. And still no explanation of what they objected to about my edits. 167.98.54.59 (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 48 hours, and page semiprotected two months. This appears to be sockpuppetry by
  WP:BKFIP. See Beluuga's block log. The IP at 167.98.54.59 may qualify for a {{webhostblock}} since it is part of a range operated by https://exponential-e.com. But since he jumps IPs this may not do much. For this particular article, some of the IP's suggestions look reasonable. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 04:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

As I noted above, my concern (as I wasn't familiar with the larger dispute) was with the edit without explanation, which lead immediately to the incivility. I'm sure this can be hashed out at the article talk page. freshacconci (✉) 04:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Page

Toys "R" Us (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Scott Bell-Moss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 14:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC) to 14:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
   1. 14:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC) "Changes to incorrect date format"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC) to 13:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
   1. 13:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC) "Added content"
   2. 13:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC) "Changed incorrect date format"
3. Consecutive edits made from 13:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC) to 13:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
   1. 13:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC) "Added content"
   2. 13:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC) "Added content"
4. Consecutive edits made from 12:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC) to 12:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
   1. 12:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC) "Added content"
   2. 12:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 11:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC) to 11:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
   1. 11:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 11:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC) "I have added content"