user talk:Historyhiker

Interests:

I am currently interested in the following topics:

- The American Revolution.

- Second World War, particularly the East African campaign.

- Economic impact of war [very broad].

- Prussia in the 1700s, particularly 1750-1790s.

- The Turkish Revolution.

- Higher Education topics.

Please tag me if you need help with your project. I am open to exploring new history topics.

Discussion about WikiProject Prussia at the talk page of WPFC

The 4 possibiliies are:

Revival

It be turned into a task force of WikiProject former countries
It be turned into a task force of WikiProject Germany
It stay independent

Death

It stays dead

Please go to the discussion if you want to weigh in. Thanks, wikipedia-kxeon mailbox 13:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyhiker: (I never saw your message to ping you on your userpage. Oops. I also forgot that you were already pinged. Twice now. Double oops)

The World Destubathon

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It started today on Monday June 16 and will run until Sunday July 13. There is over $3300 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for subjects which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested. I'm hoping to see some of our older stale US articles improved! Even if you can only manage a few articles they would be very much appreciated and help make the content produced as diverse and broad as possible! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

Hello, I'm LuniZunie. I noticed that in this edit to Umberto I of Italy, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. LuniZunie 01:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a comment on each edit on what I have done. I have mostly formatted the images. The only thing I changed is adding more text to the assassination of the King. This looks like a bot misfire. Here is the before and after of my edits to that page (this does not include bot). Historyhiker 01:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes the bot was right, I did add that change without a summary, sorry about that! Archiving this message in 5 days. Historyhiker 01:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you found the mistake. I'm not a bot though (at least I dont think), I just have tools that help me edit extremely quickly. If you have any questions, send me a message on my talk page. In the future, make sure to mention me because I dont get notifications if you dont. Happy editing! LuniZunie 12:02, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ahahah, thank you for looking after the pages! Historyhiker 16:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from History of Eritrea into British Military Administration (Eritrea). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s).

When copying within Wikipedia, at a minimum, give attribution in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination.

Please add attribution if no one has done so yet. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Why copy the entire text of a section to a new article while there are still citation needed tags on it? -- Recon rabbit 16:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Empire

I have noticed an account User:Lancer-lot-X, an account with 4 edits of which they have claimed Victor Emmanuel to be a successor of Selassie which legally he renounced and not recognized by the Government of Ethiopia and the League of Nations, these few edit accounts seem to be very prevalent. I think these edits wont stop so a higher tier protection level maybe unfortunately needed to prevent these types. CtasACT (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CtasACT, thank you for pointing this out. As far I can tell, it is not one of the accounts that has been vandalizing the Italian Royal family and war time occupation pages. It looks like the issue you mentioned was resolved for now. Most editors are well meaning and this editor may be convinced this is the correct path. My advice would be to try to engage them on the page's talk, and tag editors you think are knowledgeable about that topic. If they are not collaborative, please post on the admin pages to report them if you think it constitutes vandalism. In short, if this is indeed done in bad faith, this is a new case to me. Historyhiker 17:08, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary account IP viewer granted

Hello, Historyhiker. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! Sohom (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Information

I am the IP you talked to at talk:Second Italo-Ethiopian War.

I want to inform you that the IP who added "colonial possesion" at Italian East Africa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-44998-5) is not me. I removed his addition, since I knew you would have been against it (and since my position is to use a generic term for Italian East Africa due to its miscellaneous and debated status). Maybe he is the vandal you are looking for, idk. ~2026-45374-7 (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Can you please explain in detail why you decided to delete 11k bytes of information on the Italian East Africa article with the unsatisfactory reason of "explain in talk page"? You know that's against Wikipedia policy right? (See WP:OWN). Secondly, per MOS:MILRESULT the "See aftermath" is only for conflicts which ended in a unclear result, such as the Yom Kippur War article for instance. Saying anything but Italian victory is ahistorical. Socialwave597 (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thank you so much for engaging! Yes I know these rules and I am very familiar with the details of these topics. I invite you to contribute in the talk pages of the articles that you edit before introducing these changes. I reverted your changes (and continue to do so, unless justified) because, though there are good improvements that I think would be useful, the changes have some very troubling aspects (also other Italian 1920-1940 pages). These should be discussed so they are understood and I invite you to opine in those talk pages first. I invite you to open a discussion on what your changes are, what they improve, and any comments you have. I am happy to answer your questions about details but believe these conversations should be visible to others interested in these topics (i.e., not on my talk page). Thanks again for engaging and looking forward to your comments + dialogue. Historyhiker 04:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page.

HH, you are in violation of 3RR right now. I agree with you on the content matter but you need to self-revert in order to avoid sanctions. Generalrelative (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Understood @Generalrelative: and I am sorry. This is clearly a coordinated push to revert back to vandalized versions and the editor has turned the conversation into personal condemnations (looks like an attempt at a smear campaign). I will also note that they are refusing to engage in good faith conversation and I no longer feel comfortable engaging with the editor because the sockmaster can be very abusive. Interestingly, I got into this rabbit hole after they did the same thing a while back. I have much to say about these abuses but I do not know where to report on their nature (unblocked VPN and IP providers they are using for example). I am now spending more time working on those pages than the other pages I was hoping to help with at this point and any advice on how to deal with long term vandalism would be useful. Historyhiker 05:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 2026

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Socialwave597 (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on ANI, implying sexual assault was not cool when you already knew he wasn't the person you thought. As The Bushranger indicated when closing the thread, you need to be very careful about WP:ASPERSIONS when the block expires. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SarekOfVulcan, thank you and understood. I accept the outcome of the discussion and no hard feelings. I strongly agree sexual assault is not something light and it is sensitive topic for me personally. I believe there has been some misunderstanding about this in the admin page. I added that text as a trigger warning for anyone sensitive on the issue. My hope was actually imply the combative nature of the vandals (which I am indeed worried about) by showing the vandal's interactions to explain why I do not want to engage with them directly (people would see the other material if they clicked the link). If you revisit the page you may also notice that I have noted multiple times the about the result of the SPI including the bullet point above it (I had assumed we had established this by the time I wrote that line). I also hoped that the text I provided would have established that we need to revert and add the good aspects of the new changes (not all were bad). If I was not acting in good-faith (e.g., imply sexual harassment), I would not have included request paragraph amongst other things openly and honestly in my response. If the charge is that by saying I suspect that the two accounts are the same person, I am implicating them in the serious abuse of the vandal, then I am deeply sorry about that and please know that was not the intent.

As for the editor, I stand by my suspension that they are the vandal (again even though the technical check came back negative). I am very familiar with their edits and know that this editor is either the main master themselves or someone they know in real life. My only wish was that I had more time show why the behaviors match. Also the IP that contributed in all the pages is very likely a VPN and I urge you to do a SPI on the IPs that have been in the discussions about me (its possible they will match Jheeeeeeteegh). If I seem stubborn about this, please note that I am not this way about the other two accounts that were suspected but turned out to be cleared by technical checks. I also urge you to look at what I said about in the "Please see this" bullets of my response (about timing too). I believe this was a really good "set-up" and it has done tremendous damage to the reputation + trust of my account. Therefore I do not believe I can help with curbing both the efforts of the sock master and general Italian Fascism related issues. I wanted to document this for the next brave person taking up these tasks. I will stop editing any page on this site as a gesture of sincerity and good-will. I am so sorry I let you guys down and not to worry, I will not become what I worked so hard to stop! Historyhiker 06:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you bring the issues you raised in your email here for more community visibility. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Thank you @SarekOfVulcan:. The following is the content of my email:

After some reflection, I've come to realize that I genuinely enjoy my contributions to Wikipedia and would like to resume my editing activities if the situation allows. I’ve also reflected on my decision to step back, and I feel that it might be more dramatic than the situation warrants. After reviewing WP:ASPERSIONS, I understand that I did violate that policy, and I sincerely apologize for that. It was not my intention, and I will be much more careful about this going forward. I also recognize that it was not appropriate for me to suggest or request actions that should have been left to administrators (I jumped the gun on that). Lastly, thank you for not issuing a permanent ban and for giving me the opportunity to learn + improve my conduct.

I wanted to ask about my participation in the Counter Vandalism Unit in particular and the reputation + trust of my account. Since I now have a ban on my record, should I step away from CVU activities going forward, or is it acceptable for me to continue once the ban has been served?

Additionally, I may be mistaken, but if appropriate I would like to submit concerns through the proper process after the ban expires. Would it be appropriate for me to open an SPI regarding the IPs I mentioned and submit the evidence related to the Socialwave597 account to Asilvering and PhilKnight (they are the most familiar)? Currently, only technical connections have been evaluated by Asilvering (came back negative), but I have not had a chance to submit the behavioral evidence that rendered me suspicious. I want to be clear that I was disciplined for my own mistakes and that I would accept the outcome of that SPI. Historyhiker 20:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Opening up my questions to other admins as well:

Context link:

I am unsure about the status of my account (this is my first ban). In particular, I worry about the reputation + trust of my account and I am also wondering if the block disqualifies me from CVU work? Is it normal to continue my CVU contributions (see my email) if I contribute keeping in mind the mistakes that resulted in it?

Historyhiker 17:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No one is going to be too concerned about reverting obvious vandalism but it would probably be best to avoid going back to sock hunting for the time being. As for reputation yes the block will have an impact but that fades with time.©Geni (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Geni, this is very helpful. The thing that troubles me the most is that there are no follow-ups on these reports. The VPN the main master uses is still active as far as I can tell. There has been no listings on Wikipedia:Open proxies noticeboard of the service as far as I can tell as well. I already see other new accounts they have made recently, who and when do I talk to about these things while I recover my account? My impression is that all of this is a natural cycle of Wikipedia and that it will eventually sort itself out? My questions about long term vandalism are the most unanswered in the admin space. Historyhiker 22:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]