I'm not going to speak for @leftworks1. But looking at the links you provided it seems they were trying to add information relating to a court case at the high

I'm not going to speak for @leftworks1. But looking at the links you provided it seems they were trying to add information relating to a court case at the high court, with a public claim number. You might want to see Neil Clark's tweet about the information Philip Cross is trying to hide from Kamm's Wikipedia page: https://twitter.com/neilclark66/status/991310986643730433 https://twitter.com/neilclark66/status/991310986643730433 So we have an attempt to add information on to a Wikipedia page (to my mind information that should be on the page) by someone who is quickly banned indefinitely and their changes removed (thanks to Philip Cross monitoring the page in question). You are comparing this to a years-long campaign by a prominent Wikipedia editor to discredit, very unfairly (as I'm sure the edits show) a number of prominent anti-war voices. His changes are not reverted, he is not banned. I'm not sure how they're comparable at all.