Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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.

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

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.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364
365	366	367	368	369	370	371	372	373	374
Incidents (archives, search)
1183	1184	1185	1186	1187	1188	1189	1190	1191	1192
1193	1194	1195	1196	1197	1198	1199	1200	1201	1202
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
491	492	493	494	495	496	497	498	499	500
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349
350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:PJK 1993 reported by User:JeanClaudeN1 (Result: Blocked 48 hours and alerted to CTOPS)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] (edit made after the ANEW notice)
[8]
[9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

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

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

Comments:
The user has already received multiple warnings from other users (see their talk page before they blanked it yesterday) and was only recently blocked for edit warring, uncooperative behavior and personal attacks/false accusations (see block log and noticeboard discussion). Unfortunately, they have not changed their behavior. The user seeks to push a particular narrative which seems to be based on personal opinion even though several recent, reliable secondary sources contradict their POV. A talk page discussion with a detailed explanation of why their edit was problematic and reverted remained unanswered. [13] Instead, the user continued editing the article and ignored the talk page discussion (even after being asked to stop [14]). I made another attempt on the user's talk page [15], which they blanked again. [16] As the user continues to restore their edits, ignores source-based arguments, and refrains from participating in discussion, I no longer see any meaningful way forward here. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted once again that there is strong evidence that this user is not a newcomer. Their very first edit is initiating a RfC,[17] and they created an entry on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that same day,[18] which is very unusual for a new editor. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are misrepresentations as I will show, and an attempt at cover for POV pushing on the Gdańsk article.--PJK 1993 (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[19], [20], [21],[22], [23] ("The knights colonized the area, replacing local Kashubians and Poles with German settlers.") these reverts listed above by JeanClaudeN1 are of a longstanding statement (with a reference source attached) that JeanClaudeN1 keeps deleting. Here it is in 2024, before the current edit dispute [24]. I think this is a relevant statement and it should stay. However, JeanClaudeN1 keeps deleting it without gaining consensus to do so, and without even starting a discussion on the article's talk page. JeanClaudeN1 in reality just reported himself because it is JeanClaudeN1 that removed this statement several times without consent, and now cries wolf. --PJK 1993 (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reservations about a POV push on the Gdańsk article because over the last several weeks JeanClaudeN1 and another editor(s) have been heavily editing the article, and based on my review of those edits, it is clear that for whatever reason the historical facts related to the Polish history are being removed, creating issues of balance within the article. Over time it appears that pictures, mentions, and sources for the Green Gate, which was the ceremonial residence of the Polish monarchs in the city, the Royal Chapel, or the Polish Post Office were removed. So, there is a clear trend to remove pictures and/or text related to Polish history of the Gdańsk: older version of the article for mid-2025 [25]. --PJK 1993 (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also here JeanClaudeN1 was criticized by a different editor for disparaging Polish reference sources which did not fit the narrative [26], which shows a clear POV push on the article. --PJK 1993 (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, JeanClaudeN1 needs to acknowledge my concerns about balance issues within the Gdańsk article and stop removing and/or changing text or pictures then running to admins and complaining that I'm ignoring his POV. --:PJK 1993 (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, it is JeanClaudeN1 that is edit warring by repeatedly removing the "colonization" statement, and who broke the 3RR rule. --PJK 1993 (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the first time [27] JeanClaudeN1 removed the "The knights colonized the area, replacing local Kashubians and Poles with German settlers" on 30 August 2025. The list above is really about JeanClaudeN1 refusing to adhere to the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle[28]. --PJK 1993 (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll keep it brief: Similar to the previous noticeboard report filed by another user, PJK 1993 is once again making only false accusations. The statement they want to include is contradicted by several recent scholarly sources authored by experts on the subject, as was explained to them both on the article talk page and, most recently, on their own talk page ([29]). They refuse to get the point and give no reason why they want to insert a false claim into the article, except for “no consensus.” They don't seem interested in collaborative editing. The diffs are clear. As shown above, PJK 1993 did not respond to my comment on the article talk page and also blanked the note I left on their talk page. Instead they continued to revert (despite being asked to stop and despite the fact that they were blocked recently for the same behavior). JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said above "The statement they want to include", I don't want to "include" it because it's a longstanding statement. It's you that wanted to remove it. This is the first time you removed it: [30]. Also, as I mentioned above you dismiss and disparage sources that do not fit your narrative while touting those that do like here [31]. Nothing new has been discovered at this point, there are just new interpretations of the events surrounding the Teutonic takeover of Gdańsk, but that does not make them anymore true, btw did you add anything during your large series of edits regarding Polish history of Gdańsk, I did not find anything, so that hints at issues related to balance in a article, an article that is inherently controversial due to the history. --PJK 1993 (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior is a prime example of WP:STONEWALLING. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've made a lot of changes to the Gdańsk article, I mean a lot, and did I revert them... nope, so just because I have a serious issue with a couple of the changes that does not mean that I'm stonewalling your edits. --PJK 1993 (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note:
Not sure why a new editor just now Czello restored JeanClaudeN1's recent changes [32] after I restored the original text before the content dispute, this is a clear case of adding fuel to the fire when you take the side of the person who is not following the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --PJK 1993 (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as I've been tagged - you should really be discussing this on the article talk page rather than edit warring, even if you feel you are in the right. — Czello ^(music) 08:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you re-adding new and disputed text, when a discussion is goin on? --PJK 1993 (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion where? I haven't seen you post on the talk page in almost a month. The more pertinent question is, why are you edit warring? — Czello ^(music) 08:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, where is the discussion? The burden is on the person who is adding the new text or making changes to convince others. --PJK 1993 (talk) 08:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You just said a discussion is going on. I'm asking you where it is. — Czello ^(music) 08:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here the discussion is open because JeanClaudeN1 just kept stubbornly re-adding the new text and then reported me for breaking the revert rule, while in fact it was him that was edit warring. --PJK 1993 (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time JeanClaudeN1 [33] removed the disputed text. --PJK 1993 (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EWN is not the place for a content discussion. It's the article talk page. It also takes two to tango - if you feel JeanClaudeN1 should have opened a discussion, well the same could be said for you. — Czello ^(music) 08:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Than please direct this to JeanClaudeN1. Unfortunately, you jumped into this problem without realizing the root cause. Those edits above listed by JeanClaudeN1 is really JCN1 restoring disputed text, then coming here and crying foul when I reverted and restored longstanding version. --PJK 1993 (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that you also have a responsibility to start a talk page discussion (and judging by JeanClaude's comment above, they actually did start a discussion). You can't accuse another editor of being stubborn but then refuse to open a thread on the talk page. — Czello ^(music) 08:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours and alerted to CTOPS, since this article is under WP:CT/EE. Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:JeanClaudeN1 reported by User:PJK 1993 (Result: Reporter blocked 48 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42] (change made after JeanClaudeN1 set up his own admin notice above)
[43] (change made just now after I set up this notice)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44] (user blanked the warning)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [46]

Comments:
JeanClaudeN1 has repeatedly removed the text in question "The knights colonized the area, replacing local Kashubians and Poles with German settlers." despite being reverted. As note earlier the text in question is longstanding, has a reference source citation, and goes back at least to the end of 2024[47]. --PJK 1993 (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a retaliatory report for the one above. Both editors are judged when an admin gets to the report, meaning a second report is unnecessary. — Czello ^(music) 09:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is some baiting going on, just now JeanClaudeN1 re-added the disputed changes since I made the report, here [48] and here [49]. --PJK 1993 (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 48 hours per above and report on nominator. Daniel Case (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Obiwankenobi hellothere reported by User:Chaotic Enby (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1314123479

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1314304926

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Hamza_ibn_Ali#Far from a religious discussion regarding the Cosmology section

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1314335519

Comments:
User:ArachnidInner asked me for help formatting this report on WP:DISCORD. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:48, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 31 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:62.165.254.251 reported by User:SnowyRiver28 (Result: Already blocked)

User being reported: 62.165.254.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

10:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1314422205 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
10:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1314422129 by Gurkubondinn (talk)"
10:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1314421975 by Gurkubondinn (talk) This is misinfo. Correcting misinfo is perfectly valid."
09:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1314418638 by SnowyRiver28 (talk)"
09:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1314418483 by SnowyRiver28 (talk) I literally added a source4 that SRI owns it globally now?"
09:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1314418211 by SnowyRiver28 (talk)"
09:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1314258741 by Gurkubondinn (talk) but it also added a new source to the new statement"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

09:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC) "Note: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"
09:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"
09:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC) "/* Dunlop Tyres */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

09:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC) on User talk:62.165.254.251 "/* Dunlop Tyres */ new section"

Comments:

This is the first time I've reported anyone here so I apologise if I've done something incorrectly and would appreciate any feedback or tips! The user has continued reverting edits and ignoring warnings which aren't included in my report. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has been triggered the edit filter and possible disruption. KuyaMoHirowo • he/him (DM me on Discord at kuyamohirowo (DMs are open!)) :3 10:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a conversation with the user on Talk:Dunlop Tyres § Japanese ownership where we're helping them learn how to use and reference sources on Wikipedia, so hopefully this has a productive outcome. Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the duplicate report, looks like you submitted one as I was working on submitting a report for the same user/edit war. This was the first time that I've reported an edit warring user as well, so it took me some time while reading the guidelines and policies while submitting the report. Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, hopefully we'll both get some useful feedback and tips from a reviewing admin :) SnowyRiver28 (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked for a period of 72 hours by ScottishFinnishRadish Daniel Case (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sangdeboeuf reported by User:Absadah (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: BLP Discussion Talk Page Discussion

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [57]

Comments:
Sangdeboeuf has attempted to justify these reverts but the ongoing consensus in the BLP discussion does not support that. Absadah (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs #2 and #3 are consecutive edits, which together count as a single revert. #5 is outside the 24-hour window by more than an hour. That makes a total of three reverts within 24 hours for WP:3RR purposes. I'll have more to say about the contents of these reverts on the talk page.

Diff #5 also specifically cited WP:BLPREMOVE, and I even started a discussion at the biographies of living persons noticeboard about the specific contents of that edit. TL;DR: Absadah's evaluation of the consensus is off base. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Nina Jankowicz § ACLU*, FAIR, Golinkin and § Robby Soave editorial for further discussion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Absadah, there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on the article's talk page for including all of the removed content, so the consensus argument doesn't really work. WP:3RRNO #7 and WP:BLPRESTORE apply; WP:ONUS doesn't justify edit warring but of course also applies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No violation ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheHistorianEditor reported by User:Cristiano Tomás (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

"you are quite literally making the reference to the california genocide disappear from the lead. You have been reverted by multiple editors already - if you persist I will have to open a case regarding your actions on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring" by me
"no judgment upon the content, but per WP:BRD please take it to the talk page" by User:UpdateNerd
Warning by User:Binksternet on user's talk page: You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at California gold rush. Binksternet (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Warning by User:Remsense on user's talk page: Hi TheHistorianEditor! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore your preferred version of an article. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. Remsense 🌈 论 20:11, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

notice

Comments:

The editor has attempted to remove clear reference to the California genocide in both the California and California gold rush article intros. Their edits have also been grammatically unsound and not added any meaningful content to these articles, and thus they have been reverted by multiple editors on both pages; examples:

The user, whose account was only created last month, ignored the numerous appeals by seasoned editors regarding sources, relevance of material, obfuscation of important themes from article leads, and poor writing/grammar. They continue to revert all these other editors in order to "win" the war and get their content published, regardless of its utility or compliance with Wikipedia norms and standards.Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new user TheHistorianEditor has been disrupting several pages with poorly written text containing fractured summaries of history. The main two problems here are WP:CIR and persistent edit-warring in the face of broad opposition. I don't see a way forward for this person to keep contributing on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. I really want to edit. I wasnt trying to edit war. I recognize this California genocide, and it's horrible. And I deeply apologize for trying to remove it. I learned my mistake. All I was trying to do is trying to add more detail and information about these pages, and make them more accessible to the reader. You don't understand me. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, WP:AFG. Give me the benefit of the doubt. I just a new user. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet and Cristiano Tomas, please review WP:AFG and WP:DNB before you choose to block. I wasn't trying to cause edit wars. I was trying to add new information and make the pages clearer for users to read. I listen to your requests, and learn them, but all you do is revert my edits. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact. In my page for the California gold rush, I actually expanded on the CA genocide and expanding on the harm caused to natives. I was just trying to separate the pros and cons of the rush, and not trying to downplay the genocide, so it's more accessible. I am deeply sorry if you feel this way, and I regret doing this. I should have never downplayed such as tragic event. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please. Tell me what to do so I can help Wikipedia. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any reviewing administrator may want to take a peek at the page history of the now-fully-protected article Robert M. La Follette, including the edit warring of the reported user and the curiously similar-sounding ip editor who edit warred there two weeks prior. tony 19:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean I am banned? All I really want to do is fix articles. Please. I want to redeem myself. What should I do? TheHistorianEditor (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry, everyone. Please. I will do anything to fix this. I deeply apologize. I wont deny anything again. All I wanted to do was expand and revise history U.S. articles. PLEASE. I beg you. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheHistorianEditor has engaged in edit warring on other pages as well. He is the reason the Robert La Follette page had to be put under full protection. The Hannaford supermarket page has the same pattern, where he initially edit warred with sock puppet IPs and then under this username, to delete content without reason.

He's also made a wide array of bizarre edits, including changing the History of the United States page to include factual inaccuracies about the Trail of Tears, saying the Cherokee were removed from Oklahoma rather than the American Southeast.

This user has also removed content from several pages of historical politicians that categorize them, correctly, as slaveholders. See: his edit of John J. Crittenden, his edit of John Selden Roane, etc.

He also altered the Treatment of slaves in the United States page to say that slavery was only cruel under certain masters.

This user's hundreds of edits will have to be combed through for similar damage. Senator Aldrich (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NO NO NO. Please have mercy. Please don't block me. I beg you. I wont cause harm. I don't want to cause harm. Pretty please. I want to help Wikipedia. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to help. I want a second chance. Please. I will do anything. What I did was wrong. I am sorry for what I did. I wont cause harm. I made my mistakes. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would my result be? How long will my block be? I am trying to be good. I really want a second chance. I really want to fix on history pages. That's all I want, not a group of editors to gang up on me. Please is there anything I can do to fix this? I TheHistorianEditor (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for all what I did. All I was doing is trying to fix history and add and revise more information from other sources like Britannica and other encycloepdias. I was never trying to cause all this damage. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize my damage. I am not a vandal. And to anyone I upset, I gravely apologize. All I wanted to do is fix history articles, and add detail and information. That's my goal. I wasn't trying to cause edit wars that led to a group of users ganging up to me. I really wanted to expand and contribute to the history pages. Is there anything I can do to fix this? TheHistorianEditor (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a timeline of disruption, as far as I can determine. It began August 2024 in Hicksville, New York, with the IP6 range Special:Contributions/2600:4808:4894:C600:0:0:0:0/64 editing lots of mainspace year pages such as removing mentions of civil unrest from the 1848 page, and various internal selected anniversary pages such as removing the London Gallery from the page Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 9. The IP6 range was blocked four times, the final one for three months starting December 2024.

In February 2025, a new /64 range became active with the incomprehensible removal of Italy from a list of selected anniversaries. The removal was performed by an IP in the range Special:Contributions/2600:4808:4892:7600:0:0:0:0/64 from New York state. That range continued disrupting the wiki, especially the page Robert M. La Follette, such that it was blocked in late August for two weeks by ToBeFree. Some 16 hours after being blocked, the same disruption occurred again from the Brooklyn Library on IP Special:Contributions/208.87.239.201. That IP was quickly blocked. A few days after the IP6 rangeblock expired, TheHistorianEditor registered the username, returning to many of the same topics edited by the IP6 range including Madison, Wisconsin, Hannaford (supermarket) and the group of selected anniversaries. Technically, TheHistorianEditor is still evading the block placed on the Brooklyn Library IP. Even if this is discounted, we are looking at a lengthy list of disruption with many blocks, without having the slightest change in behavior. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. I want to edit facts about history. Stop calling it disruption. Let me edit. I really want to be a good editor who can help with the pages. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how do you know about my IP and my personal information? You should never reveal personal information. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also. I never want to vandalize. I want to help with the pages. I like history and other topics. Please, why cant you just let me edit in peace? I am not causing any of the disruption. I am just fixing the articles to make it as accurate as possible. I made some mistakes, but you don't have to harass, dox and then gang up on me. I am just an editor on Wikipedia. TheHistorianEditor (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any connection appears to have been established purely based on your public on-Wikipedia behavior, not any non-public or off-Wikipedia data. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia'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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Large language models (LLMs) Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards