Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

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

User being reported:

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

Diffs of my edits that were reverted:
 * 1)  (June 26)
 * 2)  (July 3)
 * 3)  (July 10)
 * 4)  (July 11)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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)
 * Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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)
 * Same as below  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1234812026 by Raoul mishima (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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)
 * Both users were given warnings after their most recent edits, so blocking is not appropriate.  Eve rgr een Fir  (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 is an extended confirmed user & has not engaged in discussion on the talk page nor has explained their reverts to '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)
 * 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.
 * 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 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)
 * Hello
 * Kelvintjy is a member of a controversial religious organization called Sôka Gakkai. Each time someone edits one of the pages related to this organization, he simply censors it. All his « well source » paragraphs are taken from books written by members of this organization. I have tried to add other views, critics, to make those pages more encyclopedic but Kelvin is not ok with critics.
 * Kelvinjy never tried to talk to me or discuss on the talk page, whereas I proposed many times - this is easy to check.
 * Please tell him Wikipedia is not his playground and/or just type « Sôka gakkai controversy » in google to realize those pages urgently need other POVs. Thanks. Raoul mishima (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please review the page on dispute resolution. I would use the Third opinion & mediation process.
 * I would also use the Primary source inline template to mark sources that are demonstrably primary sources. Anyone removing such a template could receive the Uw-tdel1 warning or higher. Do not do this yourself, Raoul mishima! Let a more experienced editor who does recent changes patrol or who monitors vandalism take care of such warnings. Peaceray (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please review the page on dispute resolution. I would use the Third opinion & mediation process.
 * I would also use the Primary source inline template to mark sources that are demonstrably primary sources. Anyone removing such a template could receive the Uw-tdel1 warning or higher. Do not do this yourself, Raoul mishima! Let a more experienced editor who does recent changes patrol or who monitors vandalism take care of such warnings. Peaceray (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "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)  "Undid revision 1234949955 by MrOllie (talk) what is the reason for the revert"
 * 3)  "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)  "Undid revision 1234890006 by AntiDionysius (talk) reason for the revert ???"
 * 5)  "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)  "Undid revision 1234372753 by Jacona (talk) reason for the revert ?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on New Albany, Mississippi."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * from editing New Albany, Mississippi.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: baseline version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

I think these 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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. &#126; 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)
 * , 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). &#126; 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:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Removal of "British politician" from lead sentence: Adding "ex-" to the 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)
 * 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)
 * &#126; 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. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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

User being reported: Previous version reverted to:
 * 
 * 

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 
 * 
 * 

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Unreferenced dates */ new section"

Comments:
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Edit based on British and EU law. Do NOT reverse."
 * 2)  "/* Reform UK campaign (2024) */Edit based on British and EU law. Do NOT reverse."
 * 3)  "/* Reform UK campaign (2024) */Removing further reference to the spent conviction.
 * 1)  "/* Reform UK campaign (2024) */Removing further reference to the spent conviction.
 * 1)  "/* 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)  "/* 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)  "Removing again as per Legal advice. Reference to Article 8 of the HRA / ECHR and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974."
 * 3)  "/* 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)"
 * 4)  "Mr McMurdock MP is protected by Law and has the right to privacy under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.
 * 1)  "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)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on James McMurdock."
 * 2)   "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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tacyarg&diff=prev&oldid=1235353107 Edits are based on British and European law. Do not reverse] and similar on '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:

User being reported:

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

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)
 * See WP:THETRUTH. Daniel Case (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Rueben lys reported by User:Macaddct1984 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "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)  "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)  "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:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user had created an admin notice yesterday – macaddct1984 (talk &#124; 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)
 * You are reading it wrong. On talk page, I had cited a total of 5 sources of which this book is one, authored by military historian Peter G. Tsouras (cited across Wikipedia) and has been called "more academic in nature" (in comparison with other alternate histories) by others. Also see earlier discussion on military alternative history on WP:RSN. Nobody blocks anyone for citing such books in talk page discussion only for showing a "prevalent fact" which is backed by other 4 scholarly sources cited in the same message. Orientls (talk) 07:51, 20 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 &#124; contribs) 14:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That would work too and WP:CT/IPA can be used if needed. Abecedare (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure that we're at that point yet ... the article has never been protected before, and I think 1RR, given that it relies on sort of an honor system, works best when accompanied by some sort of protection. Has there been regular disruption here of which this is just the latest instance? I have put a CTOPS notice on the talk page in any event. Daniel Case (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Per above and the "discussion" below, I am leaning more in favor of the "Wikipedia Peacekeeping Forces" solution: page blocks for both parties. At least a week since they're both CTOPS-aware. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 20 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 springing 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)

The other thing to highlight is the version I have reverted from also corrected factual inaccuracies.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The problem here is with only one editor and that is rueben_lys who believes that he has ultimate right to engage in page ownership and ignore whatever reliable sources say as his own messages here confirm. He wants to preserve the outdated version of this page when he used to frequently edit. He told, "The POV bias to describe the unit as collaborators has blinded the editors to this and overall degraded the article to a POV and poor shell of what it was in 2007." We also have Collaboration with Imperial Japan where this subject is described on Collaboration with Imperial Japan but rueben_lys wants to fight against this fact by calling it "imaginative history" as he did right above.

The deceptive nature of his edits is not limited to this. His edits were fact-checked especially here (see the "Attlee" part) yet he restored them again by writing in CAPS. Evidently, he was lectured about this entire "Attlee" disinformation about 7 years ago, yet he continues to spread this laughable disinformation again and again in each of the reverts he made recently.

Clearly, there are a number of WP:CIR issues with this user.

WP:1RR is irrelevant also because this user has started his edit war on a different article on this subject just to restore his old preferred version, and removed a number of academic sources without any edit summary. Azuredivay (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * reuben_lys has now made his 4th revert by reverting 3 different editors with this revert. None of the above messages have helped him to stop his edit war to restore his edits that are fraught with disinformation. Azuredivay (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * And with the blatant WP:NPA like "Your demand to justify my edit is borderline insane, because you are asking to justify maintaining NPOV," rueben_lys is confirming that he is not willing to discuss his edits. Azuredivay (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I had not kept an eye on this page. I don't know how to respond to the above. I have tried to incorporate a differing view point with neutral language, if this may address any perception of bias. I am at pains to emphasise, the edits reverted were/are strictly designed to strictly adhere to balanced and non-inflammatory language. The edits I have made/had made/continue to make both in the article and in the talk page are referenced in order the other editors may become aware that their perception is not accurate (both in common populance and in academia), that balance would dictate that inflammatory and biased language be avoided, and that there are multiple points of view. However this seems to have been met with stonewall of reluctance and (forgive me for using this term)dogmatic reluctance to accept that the sources being cited are very poor at best. As to what motivation there might be to falsely claim that there is a consensus among scholars regarding one POV and another, I don't know. I have provided references to the editors to highlight (firmly) that there are multiple POVs, but the response has been odd to say the least. There also an odd obsession with a comment attributed to an ex-prime minster of Britain that seems to be particularly touchy point, although this article is the correct place to mention the supposed comment. The editor appears to be under an impression my fellow-wikipedians had "scolded" me during an exchange of ideas in a previous interaction in a different page which is also contentious. I have requested those two very same experienced wikipedians for comment. The sources provided by one editor are bordering those for an A-level history essay, while another appears to say the references I have used (celebrated works of history on the subject) are not reliable/do not support my edits (exactly why, I don't know but the content of these edits appear to suggest "'cause I don't wanna" as a reason). I have tried to point this out (my credultiy can only extend so much). I am reaching a point where I am having to argue for common sense, and begining to tire of it.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 22:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

User:38.51.82.15 and others reported by User:Banfield (Result:Semi-protected for three months)
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

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:


 * for three months. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

User:64.185.2.22 reported by User:AntiDionysius (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  ""Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.""
 * 2)  "The link was not dead. The link did not exist in the first place. The reference was to a cookbook of recipes, not a historical source. The information is invalid."
 * 3)  "Missing citations are not the problem. False or unsubstantiated information is the problem. This information should never have been published here. Stop putting this false information back here."
 * 4)  "Content is supported by an absent source and is not a verified historical fact. The posted information is an attempt to rewrite history (see barbecue). Content removed."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1235546604 by The Master of Hedgehogs (talk). Content is supported by an absent source and is not a verified historical fact. The posted information is an attempt to rewrite history (see barbecue). Content removed."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1235160402 by Doclys (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * another diff I reverted myself. The edit summary clearly shows that they are aware of the edit warring rules "Then stop violating the edit warring rules..." but they keep reverting anyway. win8x (talking &#124; spying) 22:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Nexel3092 reported by User:Bahooka (Result: Attempted to delete the report, blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Prosecution */"
 * 2)  "/* Prosecution */"
 * 1)  "/* Prosecution */"
 * 1)  "/* Prosecution */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2011 Seal Beach shooting."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Ongoing edits stating where article subject is incarcerated with no references. Multiple editors warning him, yet continues. Bahooka (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Noting here that Nexel3092 attempted to delete this report. - MrOllie (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

User:38.51.82.15 reported by User:Banfield (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Comments:

Please hide this unfriendly comment in the edit summary. . Thanks,  B anfield - Threats here 00:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I personally would avoid performing revision deletion on this case of rather ordinary incivility, but I'd be fine with anyone doing so. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

User:149.50.169.109 and User:149.50.163.225 reported by User:100.36.106.199 (Result: /20 range blocked from the numbers articles for a week)
Page: ,

User being reported: ,

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * At 1,000,000,000:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * At 10,000,000:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Meters post here (which admittedly is after the last batch of reverts) but so far the IP has not shown any acknowledgement of other users on their talk page or in edit summaries.

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

Comments:

I was going to wait to see if there was any result from the talk page response, but since this report has already been opened I'll point out that these two IPs (apparently the same user) have also made similar edits to 100,000,000:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Meters (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added the second IP to the header and noticfied them. Meters (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , from all articles on numbers that they had been edit-warring on. There's too much collateral damage to block sitewide IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

User:HouseplantHobbyist reported by User:Sirfurboy (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - More than 24 hours ago
 * 2)  - Not a revert (although it is a removal) but this was a WP:POINT edit
 * 3)
 * 4)  - still WP:POINT
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (See also previous warning on that page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See, particularly and acknowledgement they were being POINTy and further encouragment to self revert:

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

Comments:

The edit dispute is over a paragraph written by this editor but removed initially by. HpH reverted this (first diff) and when I asked about it, I found I agreed with one part of the revert but not the other, and so removed the disputed content per ONUS, which I described here. This led to HpH removing other content on spurious grounds. I reverted it, but they reverted back. I suggested self revert and left it overnight. This morning it was still there so I worked with it, rewriting the lead sentence, updating it and removing the disputed mention of the midwifery council (which is superseded by more recent events). I also did not attempt to restore the text in the article body, as I decided there was a reasonable argument that this was undue in that section. My reworked wording was reverted, and HpH has made it clear that they will not allow the information back in the lead until their text (disputed by at least 3 editors) is restored. The last revert is them enforcing this after another editor attempted to repair the lead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was not the one who started off making POINTy edits, you did Sirfurboy. I said that ONUS means that content should not now be restored so you used this to remove your own chosen section of content with the brusque phrase "Per ONUS I'll go ahead and remove it again" and "Per talk and per ONUS, removing this disputed content". You were being POINTy in regards to the ONUS policy, using it after I had invoked it to make the case for your own removal of content. My position has always been therefore that I will self-revert the edit I made subsequently which you regard as counter-POINTy but only if you self-revert your own POINTy edit. You declined.
 * My own view at this point was we were both guilty of being a bit WP:POINTy and need to calm down a bit. So I then suggested to you on talk that we should both calm down a bit and discuss thing in a conciliatory manner, and I tried to ask for other editor's views on the matter: . In the morning, instead of engaging in the discussion you appeared to retaliate by suddenly removing a range of long-standing content in the article that was unfavourable to Letby or of the doubts about her conviction, the topic which had originally been the point of dispute in the first place:, . This edit in particular to the introduction section, removing a section about part of the evidence the prosecution used to convict her, seems to be in direct response and retaliatory to when I removed what I thought was the undue prominence given to her claims of innocence in the introduction yesterday. You attempted to re-add the innocence claims to the lead, despite it being subject to an ongoing discussion on talk, calling it an 'update': . I reverted and reminded you that the talk page discussion was ongoing and that was where the matter should now be decided: . Yet you re-added the disputed content again , claiming "It is clearly leadworthy that she pleaded innocent". I had to revert you again and ask you to stop edit warring at this point: . Then, you added a neutrality tag, opening no specific talk page discussion despite Template:POV clearly saying: "Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies". HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * An overview: This all started when I reverted a new editor's large changes and additions to a controversial article, Lucy Letby, in the middle of an ongoing talk page discussion where no consensus had yet been reached and the user had themselves been warned by User:Theroadislong to stop using the page as a forum to promote apparently pro-Letby views: Talk:Lucy Letby. I gave my reasonings in my edit summary and then clarified further on the talk page: . Because I had mentioned the policy of WP:ONUS as explaining why the content should not be re-added, Sirfurboy then did an edit that seems a bit WP:POINTy and invoked ONUS to do his own removal of content: . Bare in mind this is all while the talk page discussion is still ongoing.


 * Sirfurboy then reverted me when I then removed content myself which I disputed, citing WP:POINT: . I reverted, reminding him that there was an ongoing talk page discussion going on on ONUS, and asked him to stop edit warring: [. His response? To go onto my talk page and warn me for edit warring: . Sirfurboy has therefore twice used policies which I invoked or mentioned to immediately make the case for his own new edit, which seems itself a bit WP:POINTy. In fairness I have been accused of doing this as well. I wasn't actually trying to make a [[WP:POINT]] considering we were already discussing ONUS problems with the article, but I accept if editors deem my edit here incorrect. But Sirfurboy is not innocent here either. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "The last revert is them enforcing this after another editor attempted to repair the lead". No, that edit was done after another user invoked WP:STATUSQUO: I agreed with their principle or reverting to the status quo, but instead reverted it to the actual Status quo ante bellum, i.e. before yesterday when it all started: . The last stable version per Stable version was before Nhart129's initial edit yesterday that Sirfurboy alludes to. The correct Status quo ante bellum is therefore this version of 13 July, before any edits were made yesterday (19 July): . HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Also, Sirfurboy's own reversions in the last 24 hours may constitute edit warring:
 * 1)  - Original POINTy edit removing existing content that was still being argued about on talk, after I mentioned the policy of ONUS on a SEPARATE matter, so he did his own retaliatory edit saying "Per talk and per ONUS, removing this disputed content" (an apparently deliberate misinterpretation of what I was saying about ONUS):
 * 2)  - second reversion, invoking POINT himself after his original POINTy edit. This was despite me clearly outlining my concerns with this content on talk: 1) The lead section which gives undue prominence to the fact that she pled not guilty and told a disciplinary council she is innocent. The trial found her guilty and her appeals were rejected, so why is such undue prominence given to her views? Her claims of innocence can be included in the body, they should not be given such prominence in the lead. 2) The first paragraph of the 'doubts about conviction' section. This has been extensively edited in previous months to be progressively worded to be more favourable to Letby. Phrases such as "conspiracy theories" and "a small number" have been removed, despite these phrases being the exact words used by the sources. This is an apparent violation of WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE: "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources"
 * 3)  - re-adding the claims of innocence to the lead yet again despite my objections and revert, apparently trying to sneak it back in again by claiming it was just an 'update'.
 * 4)  - POINTy retaliatory edit responding to my removal of her claims of innocence from the lead by randomly deleting a long-standing section about the evidence the prosecution used against her from the intro, which hadn't even been under discussion
 * 5)  - re-adding the innocence claqims to the intro yet again
 * 6)  - then closing(?!) a talk page discussion that I opened on his behalf so he could justify the inclusion of the intro content he kept adding. He had failed to open a talk page discussion after adding a neutrality tag:, so I did it for him, reminding him that Template:POV says: Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies. Yet he just decided of his own accord to close the discussion?!?! HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * for 2 days. You are both edit warring, and you both need to stop editing the article and work it out on the talk page. – bradv  17:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)