Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive500

Edit warring by User:Hbanm at Mahavira

Page: [[{{{pagename}}}]] 

User being reported: [[User:{{{uid}}}|{{{uid}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{uid}}}|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/{{{uid}}}|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/{{{uid}}}|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/{{{uid}}}|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/{{{uid}}}|block user]] · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff 1

            Diff 2 
            Diff 3

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: {{{warnings}}}

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: {{{resolves}}}

Comments:

The user User:Hbanm has engaged in multiple reverts on Mahavira, exceeding the limits of the three-revert rule. I warned them about edit warring on their talk page (warning diff), but further reverts followed after the warning.

This behavior is disruptive to the editing process, and the user has not attempted to discuss the disputed content on the article’s talk page. Administrative attention is requested. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs.. Consecutive edits count as a single edit for the purposes of 3RR, and I don't see any 3RR violation. I would suggest starting a discussion on the article's talk page, as no one has used the article's talk page. Aoidh (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

User:123.208.20.237 reported by User:Thedarkknightli (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Russell Crowe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 123.208.20.237 (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]
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8]
8. [9]

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [11]

Comments:

IP blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Ejkfvjj reported by User:Jähmefyysikko (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

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

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [18]

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Aleyna Nur Baran reported by User:Miria~01 (Result: Stale )

Page: Gerd Müller Trophy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aleyna Nur Baran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 18:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
2. 00:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
3. 16:44, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
4. 14:46, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

'Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  12:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 18:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Comments:
The user (newly created account) is trying to force his point of view against the consensus without any evidence (probably only to disrupt page) and is ignoring any sources or arguments from other users. Miria~01 (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

• Stale Consider discussion on the talk page, or dispute resolution. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don't understand the decision. The user has violated the rules more than four times in a short period of time (eight reverts in three days), and against several other users. There's no basis for discussion here, as this is only about disruption. Miria~01 (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

  But they haven't edited the article in the last 24 hours, so a block to prevent disruption (or other administrative action) isn't appropriate at this time, as the policy advises. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

1. 23:41, 26 September 2025 UTC

again a revert, which can certainly be considered a clear violation as it is the ninth time (see definition:...gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation) Miria~01 (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Hbanm reported by User:Pawapuri Winds (Result: Page protected)

Page: Mahavira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hbanm (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. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]
5. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

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

Comments: I want to inform that the user has been persistently reverting edits made by me. The tone of their reply does not appear to be very constructive to engage on the talk page further. I removed a phrase from the lead of the page as it is already very obvious from the content in the body. I do not feel that it is needed to be in the lead of the page. I also informed them that "Tirthankar" is a title and not a honorific. However the user is resorting to reverting edits relentlessly.

Page protected for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Ritchie333, could you please undo the last edit made by the edit-warring user? Pawapuri Winds (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Awaiting for a response! Pawapuri Winds (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Hotgas reported by User:MoonsMoon (Result: page protected)

Page: Dance in Thailand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hotgas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]
5. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: []

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [33]

Comments:

Hotgas repeatedly deletes well-supported and relevant content from 'Connections Between Thai Classical Dance and Neighboring Countries' and has done so for about a month at least. Hotgas replied to Pro-anti-air's post on their Talk Page on 9/2/25 justifying content deletion because "topic was about the thai-dance not the cambodian dance history." I replied noting the particular topic is actually 'Connections Between Thai Classical Dance and Neighboring Countries.' Then I started a topic attempting to discuss any content they believe doesn't fit but noted repeatedly deleting encyclopedic content can be vandalism. Hotgas has not responded.

• Page protected asilvering (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

User:JoshGracin25 reported by User:Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (Result: Page protected)

Page: Josh Gracin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JoshGracin25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]
5. [39]
6. [40]
7. [41]
8. [42]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussions at other venues: [44][45][46]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [47]

Comments:

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Titikaka3456 reported by User:ToBeFree (Result: Protected for a week)

Page: Daniele Compatangelo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Titikaka3456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC) "I restored the original page as a reference to match the information on the page. I invite you to check the links, which are in Italian, instead of continuously deleting the page unilaterally — especially since it has been there since 2017. There is no reason to act this way toward a reporter who works from the White House unless there is a clear intention to target this reporter"
2. 21:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC) "I noticed that some well-sourced and verifiable content has been repeatedly removed from the article in question. I understand that editorial decisions can sometimes be based on concerns over neutrality or reliability, but in this case, the material in question has been part of the page since 2017 and is supported by credible references, including professional affiliations such as the Ordine dei Giornalisti del Piemonte. Please note that I am not personally connected to the subject. Thank you"
3. 16:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC) "Unilateral deletion of well-documented and reliably sourced information about this reporter—published since 2017—violates multiple Wikipedia content policies. The removals appear to be politically motivated, based on editors’ personal views, their disapproval of the current White House, or possible external influence by foreign reporters affiliated with the White House Foreign Media Group. Some users—reportedly with political bias or agendas—are repeatedly deleting content from this article for"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Daniele Compatangelo."
2. 20:23, 28 September 2025 (UTC) "/* Introduction to contentious topics */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 21:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC) "/* Promotion / résumé */ new section"

Comments:

WP:BLPRESTORE applies. The user had been informed about this in addition to the regular edit warring warning, and they replied to the warning before reverting again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

The disputed content "being part of the page since 2017" is obviously wrong.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, the editor claims to be "here to learn" but at least two responses on their User talk and one response at User talk:ToBeFree have been identified as AI-generated.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

And continuing to edit war while logged out, unless of course it's just coincidence they made this talk page post regarding the article while logged in just four minutes later. FDW777 (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Page protected for a week by ScottishFinnishRadish Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

User:2001:4455:4ba:6900:b5d1:b1d8:aae2:a778 reported by User:Jjpachano (Result: /40 blocked two weeks)

Page: Super Five Transport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:4455:4ba:6900:b5d1:b1d8:aae2:a778 (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. [48]
2. [49]
3. [50]
4. [51]

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

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

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

Comments:
This IP range needs to be blocked due to persistently unexplained content removal since August 20, 2025 - Jjpachano (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of two weeks 2001:4455:400:0:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Jmancthree reported by User:McSly (Result: Page protected)

Page: Remote viewing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC) ""Consensus" is not a reason for the exclusion for text. There must be a valid reason beyond personal taste. This is not your personal article. Use the talk page."
2. 19:54, 29 September 2025 (UTC) "As per discussion in talk page, text is within the WP:UNDUE guidelines, and its length is a WP:SATISFACTION issue, which is not a reason for its exclusion, when there is a great interest in its inclusion"
3. 23:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC) "Carter's brush with Remote Viewing is unambiguously important or it wouldn't generate so much discussion in the TALK page, and correctly limited to this WP:FRINGE article, per WP:UNDUE text"
4. 23:19, 28 September 2025 (UTC) "Reverting per WP:UNDUE text explicitly validating the type of text allowed to be featured in WP:FRINGE articles."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC) "/* It's not undue to discuss remote viewing, per WP:UNDUE text, in the remote viewing article. */ Reply"

Comments:

• Page protected by Anachronist ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this report; thanks for the ping. I didn't protect it solely due to the edit warring. I EC-protected it for Arbitration Enforcement, because I didn't find any constructive edits from inexperienced editors, even those who are confirmed but not EC. The protection, therefore, is indefinite. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Page: Hamza ibn Ali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Obiwankenobi hellothere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1314123479

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1314285339
2. Special:Diff/1314293242
3. Special:Diff/1314293874
4. Special:Diff/1314310684
5. Special:Diff/1314327641

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)

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [54]
2. [55]
3. [56]
4. [57]
5. [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

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: [60]

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)

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)

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

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)

• No violation ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Page: California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and California gold rush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheHistorianEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1. Gold Rush revert where User:Binksternet tells TheHistorianEditor not to remove reference to the California genocide
2. California revert where User:Elli states edit removed a significant amount of sourced content without explanation

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. California - Most Recent Revert
2. California - Previous Revert 1
3. California - Previous Revert 2
4. California - Previous Revert 3
5. California Gold Rush - Most Recent Revert
6. California Gold Rush - Previous Revert 1
7. California Gold Rush - Previous Revert 2
8. California Gold Rush - Previous Revert 3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. "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
2. "no judgment upon the content, but per WP:BRD please take it to the talk page" by User:UpdateNerd
3. 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)
4. 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)

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:
  • California User:Elli - Undid revision 1313373548 by TheHistorianEditor (talk) rv good faith; this removed a significant amount of sourced content without explanation
  • California User:Elli - Undid revision 1313376041 by TheHistorianEditor (talk) this introduced grammatical issues and also stuff like not having the prior status of territory is pretty trivial for the lead.
  • California User:Binksternet - Reverted 1 edit by TheHistorianEditor (talk) to last revision by Cristiano Tomás
  • California gold rush California gold rush - User:Remsense - Undid revision 1313526871 by TheHistorianEditor (talk) no, you'll do what i asked miltiples times and discuss your disputed additions as site policy (WP:ONUS) requires, thank you
  • California gold rush User:Elli: Undid revision 1313372328 by TheHistorianEditor (talk) not seeing how this is an improvement
  • California gold rush User:Binksternet: Reverted 1 edit by TheHistorianEditor (talk): Rv per WP:NPOV -- Don't remove the genocide
  • California gold rush User:Remsense - Undid revision 1313521870 by TheHistorianEditor (talk) per the message on your talk, this is useless fluff or uncited. discuss on the article talk page before doing more of thiss
  • California gold rush User:Cristiano Tomás - "when news of gold discovery reach the east coast"... "a huge search for gold and towns" this is so poorly written its not an improvement in the slightest - you have been reverted several times by different editors, do not add again - want to discuss it? take it to the talk page.

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Page: Gdańsk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PJK 1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [62]
2. [63]
3. [64]
4. [65]
5. [66]
6. [67] (edit made after the ANEW notice)
7. [68]
8. [69]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [72]

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. [73] Instead, the user continued editing the article and ignored the talk page discussion (even after being asked to stop [74]). I made another attempt on the user's talk page [75], which they blanked again. [76] 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)
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,[77] and they created an entry on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that same day,[78] which is very unusual for a new editor. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

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)

• [79], [80], [81],[82], [83] ("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 [84]. 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)
• 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 [85]. --PJK 1993 (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
• Also here JeanClaudeN1 was criticized by a different editor for disparaging Polish reference sources which did not fit the narrative [86], which shows a clear POV push on the article. --PJK 1993 (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Here is the first time [87] 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[88]. --PJK 1993 (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

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 ([89]). 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)

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: [90]. Also, as I mentioned above you dismiss and disparage sources that do not fit your narrative while touting those that do like here [91]. 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)

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

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)

Additional note:
Not sure why a new editor just now Czello restored JeanClaudeN1's recent changes [92] 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

This is the first time JeanClaudeN1 [93] removed the disputed text. --PJK 1993 (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Page: Gdańsk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JeanClaudeN1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [94]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [95]
2. [96]
3. [97]
4. [98]
5. [99]
6. [100]
7. [101]
8. [102] (change made after JeanClaudeN1 set up his own admin notice above)
9. [103] (change made just now after I set up this notice)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [104] (user blanked the warning)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [105]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [106]

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[107]. --PJK 1993 (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

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)

There is some baiting going on, just now JeanClaudeN1 re-added the disputed changes since I made the report, here [108] and here [109]. --PJK 1993 (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

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