Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
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

User:Epicgenius reported by User:Capmo (Result: No violation)

Page: Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo House (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Epicgenius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: several versions, he always changes the article after reverting me.

Diffs of my edits that were reverted:

1. [1] (June 26)
2. [2] (July 3)
3. [3] (July 10)
4. [4] (July 11)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [6]

Comments:
I was reading this article on June 26 and noticed that facade appeared several times in it. Considering that it's a loanword from French, where it's spelled façade with a cedilla, and considering that the English Wikipedia article also uses the spelling with a cedilla, I edited the article to apply this spelling. There are possibly hundreds of other articles that may be using the spelling without a cedilla, I'm not trying to impose my POV and changing all of them. I did it on this particular article because I genuinely thought it was an improvement, but the user does not accept it at all. He reverted me four times and then accused *me* of edit warring, on the talk page. He insists that facade is the correct spelling and that there needs to be an "article-level consensus" on the subject for it to be changed. I'm not asking for a block on the user, I just would like someone else to weigh in on this discussion. I particularly think that façade is a more suitable spelling and that the user is imposing his POV and acting as the "owner" of the article, but I will accept whichever solution is proposed by a neutral third party. Regards, —capmo (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• The relevant guideline here is WP:DIACRITICS. Which version the Wikipedia article uses is irrelevant; which version do the sources about this article use? (There is no violation of WP:3RR here, by the way, due to the long period over which the reverts were made). Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Black Kite, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission source does not use a diacritic, and neither does the National Park Service source. There is a PhD dissertation that seems to use both spellings interchangeably, but most of the other news sources don't seem to use any diacritics.

  Capmo is trying to impose his preferred spelling of the article by citing an RM at Talk:Façade, even though there was specifically no consensus for either spelling. Since the Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo House article's sources consistently use the spelling "facade", and since "facade" is not an incorrect spelling in American English, I changed it back to that spelling. When I pointed that out on the talk page, Capmo accused me of reverting the spelling "based solely on your personal taste". After I made additional comments on the talk page, pointing out that "facade" is a proper spelling, he refused to further engage, and instead filed this edit warring report. He also claimed that "consensus was already reached at façade, we don't need another one", even though the previous RM ended in a decision of "no consensus".

  I should also note that I didn't revert him after July 10 - there was no fourth revert. This edit-warring report seems to be specious, as I did discuss on the talk page, but Capmo refused to respond other than to say that I was imposing my own POV into the article, which I was not. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Epicgenius sorry, I inadvertently assumed you had reverted me a fourth time, which didn't happen. I apologize for that. —capmo (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Black Kite, thank you for your observations. When reading WP:3RR I didn't notice that it was restricted to a short time-frame, my bad. I accept your suggestion to apply the spelling according to the sources used in the article and will discuss this on Epicgenius's talk page. Kind regards, —capmo (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• No violation Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Raoul mishima reported by User:Peaceray (Result: Page protected)

Page: Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 18:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC) to 12:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan

Comments:

Raoul mishima & Kelvintjy are both involved in an edit war. This topic is not within my expertise, but it is clear that someone needs to step in to arbitrate. Peaceray (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected Same as below EvergreenFir (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Kelvintjy reported by User:Peaceray (Result: Page protected)

Page: Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1234812026 by Raoul mishima (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 18:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC) to 12:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan

Comments:

Raoul mishima & Kelvintjy are both involved in an edit war. This topic is not within my expertise, but it is clear that someone needs to step in to arbitrate. Peaceray (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected Both users were given warnings after their most recent edits, so blocking is not appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. I was not meaning for the editors to be blocked, only that some sort of mediation might be required, & that these particular editors be guided to discussion on the talk page. However, since Kelvintjy is an extended confirmed user & has not engaged in discussion on the talk page nor has explained their reverts to Raoul mishima's edits, perhaps page protection is best for now. Peaceray (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  • I have only revert back the edit made by Raoul mishima as previous editors had tried to talk to him but he keep making the edits without discussing with other editors first. On top of that, most of thye edits thatr I had reverted are well sourced for quite some times already. These past few months, Raoul mishima had made quite a lot of edits and 2 of the pages is editted too much that it is not recognizable due to his edits. The pages are Soka Gakkai and Daisaku Ikeda. Kelvintjy (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You may also want to refer to the below talk page where a few editors tried to talk to Raoul mishima but it was unsuccessful.

• User talk:Raoul mishima
• Talk:Soka Gakkai International
• Talk:Daisaku Ikeda

Kelvintjy (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kelvintjy: I wish to note that of the eight reversions that you did to Raoul mishima' edits at Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan, you left an edit summary on only one of them, in which you stated It is already weel sourced. It is you who made all the edit where other had tried to discuss. I will note that Raoul mishima made several statements about references in the edit summary & opened a discussion on the talk page. As of 2024-07-17 16:28 UTC, no one has responded at Talk:Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan § Biased.

You left no comments on the article talk page or Raoul mishima's talk page. Without any meaningful communication on your part to indicate your reasoning, your behavior seemed like edit warring.

I believe that it would have been helpful to reference discussions in the edit summary & at Talk:Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan. As the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle essay suggests, it is best to engage discussion on the talk page. Please review the WP:Dispute resolution procedural policy. Peaceray (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

User:98.240.113.219 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Partially Blocked)

Page: New Albany, Mississippi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 98.240.113.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1234952199 by MrOllie (talk) you are the one edit warring, when you follow me from another article and revert me without giving any justification, while jacona and i are discussing the sources and the language to be used"
2. 00:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1234949955 by MrOllie (talk) what is the reason for the revert"
3. 20:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1234915855 by Jacona (talk) if you want to take up a contrary position, and oppose my revision, you should state your reasons - why do you want to remove a critical fact (that the victim of the lynching confessed), when it's in the sources which are already cited?"
4. 18:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1234890006 by AntiDionysius (talk) reason for the revert ???"
5. 17:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1234828573 by Jacona (talk) you can add these details, if you have sources for them, but it's not constructive to remove them altogether"
6. 20:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1234372753 by Jacona (talk) reason for the revert ?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on New Albany, Mississippi."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week from editing New Albany, Mississippi. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Ssr reported by User:Mikeblas (Result: Blocked 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: baseline version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. reverted #1
2. reverted #2
3. reverted #3
4. reverted #4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Ssr talk page warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• explanation of reversion of unreferenced material and referencing errors
• please stop
• happy to help, nothing to review

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: an3-notice on Ssr's talk page

Comments:

I think these hostile responses are unacceptable and objectively unproductive. The material added by this user introduces seven or so undefined reference errors. There's one reference that's hooked-up, but all others cause errors. The edits this user made were not described in edit summaries, and I offered to help on the talk page. Their responses have not been WP:CIVIL. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I would have blocked but I am unfortunately involved with this user. Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours 3RR wasn't violated, but this editor's intransigence and battleground mentality, as evidenced on the talk page, in reverting over the last couple of days are enough to justify this. Daniel Case (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't? -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Mikeblas, while I generally don't use the three-revert rule to evaluate whether there was an edit war, the four diff links provided in the report have three different dates in their UTC timestamps, 2024-07-15, -16 and -17. It is thus impossible for them to fit into 24 hours. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Then, where should I have ask for help with this problem? -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Mikeblas, here. "This page is for reporting active edit warriors" too. Daniel Case just pointed out that the 3RR hasn't been violated, you wondered about it and I explained why 3RR didn't apply – but that doesn't mean the report was wrong (it led to a block). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I see. How confusing! Thanks for the explanation. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

As it says at WP:EW, 3RR need not have been violated for edit warring to have occurred. As WP:GAME explains, editors who try to comply with the letter of the policy but not its spirit by making sure their four reverts occur over a greater period than 24 hours will get blocked, and we have also blocked editors who, like Ssr, made a revert or two for several days running as well as those who spread their reverts across different articles. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

User:150.107.175.66 reported by User:AP 499D25 (Result: Blocked 1 month)

Page: Jonathan Gullis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 150.107.175.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
Removal of "British politician" from lead sentence:

1. 02:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
2. 18:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
3. 08:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
4. 20:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding "ex-" to the lead sentence:

1. 07:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
2. 20:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
3. 06:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
4. 09:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
5. 07:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
6. 07:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
7. 09:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

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

Comments:

The person making these edits behind this IP address appears to be uncommunicative, unaware of the policy about edit warring, and is constantly restoring these changed—which have now been opposed by at least seven different editors, including me—without engaging in any talk page discussion.

What's rather ironic and funny here is that this 150.107.175.66 IP address is actually the public IP I'm currently editing Wikipedia from. I discovered this edit war incidentally while using Wikipedia in a private browsing window, and so I tried to stop the edit war by sending the IP a friendly notice about edit-warring (I noticed there were "vandalism" warnings on the user talk page, which I know these edits aren't quite vandalism), as well as starting a discussion on the article talk page providing my opinion on the matter (although I did make one revert, with a good explanation).

More about this IP, it's a CGNAT network, meaning there are actually multiple customer connections on this single IP address. Doesn't look like a block would cause much collateral damage though, and I am aware the standard type of IP address editing block only prevents anonymous users from editing and not logged-out editors. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  This would have been a first chance to experience what it's like to be blocked from editing Wikipedia (from an IP editor PoV of course), but that has already just been fulfilled earlier today at university, where I was suddenly met with a block notice after clicking on the undo button of (ironically,) the edit-warred edit above to see if it's undoable (I was not logged in over there). Though strangely, the "Your current IP address" was completely different from the actual subnet that was blocked (leftmost digits were off by 80), so that was kinda bizarre to me. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  Here's a list of the pages displayed by MediaWiki to blocked users in various situations. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Tomforx reported by User:1Veertje (Result: Stale)

Page: Emily Reid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

• [7]

Previous version reverted to:

• [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• [9]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [10]
• [11]
• [12]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 11:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Emily Reid "/* Unreferenced dates */ new section"

Comments:

• Stale. Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

User:5.64.200.38 reported by User:Tacyarg (Result: )

Page: James McMurdock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 5.64.200.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 21:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC) to 21:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
   1. 21:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC) "Edit based on British and EU law. Do NOT reverse."
   2. 21:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC) "/* Reform UK campaign (2024) */Edit based on British and EU law. Do NOT reverse."
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC) to 20:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
   1. 20:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC) "/* Reform UK campaign (2024) */Removing further reference to the spent conviction.

Justification in line with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act / European Convention on Human Rights (right to privacy), and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (conviction is now spent)."

1. 1. 20:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC) "/* Early life, family and education */Removing wording again to protect the personal details of a private individual as per Article 8 of the HRA / ECHR"
   2. 20:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC) "Removing again as per Legal advice. Reference to Article 8 of the HRA / ECHR and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974."
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC) to 20:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
   1. 18:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC) "/* Early life, family and education */Reference to family member is in breach of the law as the referenced person is a non public figure and has the right to privacy. The person in question has never been discussed publicly by James McMurdock MP. Quote is also inaccurate as it mixes different points in time; living in a council house (past) and the mother’s work (present)"
   2. 20:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC) "Mr McMurdock MP is protected by Law and has the right to privacy under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

The conviction in question is spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders act 1974.

All matters relating to this offence took place before his election. As such continued reference to this past incident is in breach of Article 8 of the HRA / ECHR."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on James McMurdock."
2. 21:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on James McMurdock."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor has three times removed information relating to this person's conviction. Editor has posted on my Talk page Edits are based on British and European law. Do not reverse and similar on ADifferentMan (talk · contribs)'s Talk page. Tacyarg (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

He has now also replied to my warning with the same. Porterjoh (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Truefacts24 reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: Partial block )

Page: Germany national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Truefacts24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff
6. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Uruguay_four_time_world_champions?

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

Comments:
This editor seems entirely unwilling to engage with the concerns others have with their editing in this dispute. In particular, their final comment in the WT:FOOTY discussion reads as them saying "anyone who disagrees with me must be acting in bad faith." Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Sir Sputnik is trying to dictate a discussion by reporting me and ignoring what me and others have stated. Taking my last comment out of context. I have only provided facts and others try to argue with emotions. People agree with me, I have proven that FIFA agrees with me. Sir Sputnik is a German speaker with a bias to change or ignore reality to make his favorite football team look better than the truth. I am neither German nor Uruguayan, I’m a US citizen trying to get the truth to be told.Truefacts24 (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Partially blocked and warned for personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

There was no personal attack. I just stated facts that are particularly relevant in this discussion. Truefacts24 (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

You abused this noticeboard for personal attacks. Any more and the partial block will become a siteblock. Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Rueben lys reported by User:Macaddct1984 (Result: )

Page: Indian National Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1235435437 by Azuredivay (talk) Repeated reversion to a very POV version. THIS IS COVERED IN THE ARTICLE AND IN THE INTRODUCTION!!! A POV VERSION SHOULD BE DISCussed, NOT THE NPOV version!!!!"
2. 17:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1235224735 by Orientls (talk) This is an extremely POV edit to insist that "Freedom fighter" (Indian view) should be identified as "Collaborators" (British view) in the lead sentence. This is detailed in depth in the article, I will emphasise again this is not NPOV. See talk. I have requested admin oversight."
3. 18:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1235037302 by Azuredivay (talk). The resources are predomienntly THE book on the topic by Peter Fay and by Joyce Lebra published by university publsihers, as well as other publsihed papers and reliable sources. I have no idea what whitewashing is suggested. Please discuss in talk page and seek consensus."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Notice by Azuredivay

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 18:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC) to 17:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Indian National Army

Comments:

The user had created an admin notice yesterday – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• I would recommend article protection or page blocks for both parties because from the talk page discussion because frankly both sides are wrong: rueben_lys arguing that NPOV should be based on what "people" believe rather than reliable sources, and Orientls citing a book about a imagined alternate history in which the Japanese won WWII for historical facts! Abecedare (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a technical WP:3RR violation here because of the timing of the edits. But I do think that we should make it clear that this sort of slow back-and-forth reverting is not OK. Instead of protection, maybe 1RR? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies, I didn't realize it technically stretches over 2 days. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: That would work too and WP:CT/IPA can be used if needed. Abecedare (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thankyou. I am not sure why my last edit hadn't been saved. The point of contention is not what "people believe". The contention is WP:NPOV. I have written in this article (and many otehrs) over the last twenty years, and am quite familiar with W:RS as all my work would show. The article as I wrote it (and I will point out I do not claim ownership, but am damn proud of the what it was ten years ago) balanced the diametrically opposing view points of collaborator/traitors against the freedomfighter. Note NPOV is not dependent on WP:RS as the page on NPOV will tell any editor. There is necessarily two very opposing view points on this unit, and since 1950s (Hugh Toye,s 'the war of the sringing tiger onwards), there is a bias within British historians to decribe and insist on describing this unit as "collaborators" and collaborators only. I will challenge you to find a single Indian person in the street who will agree with this and will not find this description deeply offensive (as my google search has demonstrated). In India the unit is seen as "freedom fighter" (Note there is a monument in Singapore paid for by Indians in memory of a memorial that was destroyed by the Allied forces in 1945. This is how the unit and its history is perceived in India and by Indians. The fact that it was blown up by allied forces will also give you an idea what perception the unit was held in by British/allied forces and the historians in Western Universities thereafter who wrote about this organisation.

Therefore to insist on a version that insists on imposing this deeply divisive and pejorative description in the very introductory sentence on the basis of a "imaginative history" is blatantly POV. When I wrote the article I introduced this divison on perspective in the introduction, and then dedicated an entire section to this controversy, in order the article was NPOV. Note the resources I used where by very well regarded Historians in published research work, from well regarded universities (the best of best of WP:RS). What has happened in the preceding four years whilst I moved on in real life was that this balanced perspective has slowly been chipped away to the point the pejorative description is now being insisted upon, and the editors insisting on this are using dubious resources (I wouldn't consider the work cited to be reliable, either the work themselves or the authors). My insistence is that there be an avoidance of perjorative terms and descriptions favouring one POV at the expense of another. This makes wikipedia an unreliable resource. I am sure none of us want that, and spoils the efforts made by other editors (including the historical me) who dedicate their own time.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)