Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Codename Lisa (talk | contribs) at 06:21, 14 March 2018 (→‎User:Codename Lisa reported by User:Headbomb (Result: ): add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    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:Kiyoweap reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Declined)

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

    Previous version reverted to: diff 04:40, 7 March 2018

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff 23:04, 7 March 2018
    2. diff 11:40, 9 March 2018
    3. diff 05:29, 10 March 2018
    4. diff 15:14, 10 March 2018
    5. diff 10:09, 11 March 2018

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff; fwiw, diff of notice of DS for PSCI

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Tatzelwurm#Cryptozoologists

    Comments:

    User is slow-motion edit-warring credulous pseudoscience and OR/editorializing into this article about a legendary creature. Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And they are continuing to add back PSCI-violating content. Please do block. I may need to escalate to AE but this will hopefully not be necessary. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Comment: I have let some of Jytdog "simply"ing edits to stand, but I have also reverted him for editing negligently without consulting the sources I give, and his reaction is that I am edit-warring.

    He has deleted content as WP:OR when they were quite plainly cited as I complained to him here.
    He has also laid the "false accusation" that I was "editiorializing" an opinion, when the opinion was the sourced author's, as I explained here.
    He shows unfamiliarity with the subject with mistakes like "Steiermark, Styria" as a place name and "plural Birgstuz'n" introduced here, resulting in WP:OVERCITE x 5.

    The Tatzelwurm is about some dragon of legend. I did not really bother stressing to readers that in a 17th century book, the sightings of "cat-headed" dragons were about nonexistent creatures, as that would be stating the obvious.
    However, for this, Jytdog has accused me of credulity, which is a pretty spectacular insult on my intelligence.

    I shouldn't be accused of promoting WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE here.
    I said nothing about their existence being proven through cryptozoological methods passed off as science, which is what you really need to see to make that accusation stick.
    --Kiyoweap (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see a 3RR violation here, though there is a long term dispute. Consider filing this at the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined – Left suggestions on the editors' talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:5.151.0.114/User:For 2A01:388:289:150:0:0:1:28C reported by User:MjolnirPants (Result: No action)

    Page: Self-referential humor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 5.151.0.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & For 2A01:388:289:150:0:0:1:28C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [2]
    2. [3]
    3. [4]
    4. [5]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6] (See edit summary)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

    Comments:
    IP hopper is continuing to edit war despite warning and attempts to discuss at talk. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Holding to see if EEng's compromise is accepted (or at least stops the edit war). --NeilN talk to me 23:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: No action. There has been no more reverting since User:EEng added his compromise. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WorldWideNut reported by User:Throast (Result: Declined)

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

    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robin_Williams&oldid=697067899

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [8]
    2. [9]
    3. [10]
    4. [11]
    5. [12]
    6. [13]
    7. [14]
    8. [15]
    9. [16]
    10. [17]
    11. [18]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article (/user?) talk page: [19]

    Comments:
    Has not violated WP:3RR (but arguably edit warred) on other articles such as Angry Grandpa, Richard Arvin Overton and Aladdin (1992 Disney film), but demonstrated tendencies. Gives none or unsubstantial reasons for reverts. Throast (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Declined Throast, if you want to refile a report please do so with diffs and not article version links and not about an article WorldWideNut last touched in January 2016. NeilN talk to me 20:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:François Robere reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: )

    Page: Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: François Robere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. - no edit summary -
    2. You keep complaining that the article is too long, but you revert any and all deletion that oppose your POV
    3. This has been discussed multiple times
    4. This isn't anyone's biography

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See talk page of article, and reported editor's talk page.

    Comments:
    The reported editor has been making major changes to the "Poland" section of the article over and over again for more than a week now, in spite of being reverted by multiple other editors, and returned to delete most of that section today, in spite of there being an ongoing discussion on the talk page of the article, with no consensus supporting the changes. After making three reverts today I gave them a 3RR-warning, and since they felt the warning was nonsense I also pointed them to WP:3RR, after which they tried to deliberately skirt the 3RR-rules by not making a direct revert or the type of blatant blanking they've done before, "only" editing part of the section and adding "it occasionally took part in persecuting fellow Jewish partisans". Whether it should count as a revert or not is open to interpretation, but the editing pattern and the attempt to get at least part of their changes into the article, even after being warned, and with no support from other editors, shows that they have no intention of stopping, and couldn't care less about what other editors think. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Waiting on a response from François Robere. --NeilN talk to me 20:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • @NeilN: They just deleted the 3RR-warning, the discussion that followed and the AN3-notification, so I don't think you'll see any response from them here. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment by François Robere
    • The OP is conflating several edits (not to say several issues), which I'll now explain.
    • The first edit I made there tonight (which is also my first edit there in three days) was this. I discussed this issue with the editor who introduced the content - in particular, the number and quality of sources (4-5 sources per claim, some contradicting the the claims they're supposed to establish), and the relevance of some details - but after three days of not getting a reply from an otherwise active editor, I decided to make the changes. The OP blocked the change, claiming "discussion was taking place", but the fact of the matter discussion had stopped three days earlier. While it is within my rights, I did not revert the OPs reversion and decided to move on to other parts of the article.
    • The second edit is of a reference to "Righteous Among the Nations" - this has was discussed multiple times on the talk page, with the consensus being it's irrelevant to this article, and all mentions have been removed. This situation held for some time, until another editor, perhaps unfamiliar with the discussions, restored it several days ago. My removal of the material was completely within the consensus.
    • The third edit isn't a reversal of anything - it's material that was part of the article on-and-off in some form for a while, though with little discussion to either side. I pointed out before that this material is, essentially an attempt at sanitizing certain historical facts (as much of the current content is), and the sources that support this assertion are already cited in some place or another. In policy terms - the content wasn't WP:NEUTRAL (owing mainly to WP:BIASED sources), and there's nothing preventing its removal by me or by anyone else.
    • The final edit the OP is referring to included the addition of material that was never in question by anyone (other than a request for page number). Frankly I don't know why the OP even includes it. The only time it was removed was when another editor undid a week's worth of changes by everyone, without objecting any particular edit. Mind, that editor hasn't been reported to ANI, and neither has the editor who just made this removal with no discussion.
    • Having these too reverted, despite all the reasoning and discussion we already had. I went back to the talk page and gave a sentence-by-sentenced deconstruction of the text (including parts I didn't touch), which I doubt will provoke discussion as it isn't the first time I've done it.
    • So it's essentially a bunch of disjointed edits, properly discussed, with no attempt of "war" or anything that breaches policy.
    • We may yet need ANI involvement there, but this isn't the case. Editors have openly expressed racist views, flaunted consensus, introduced bias to the article in any number of ways, and otherwise sought to hinder any progress unfriendly to their POV in this almost shameful piece of text. If you check the talk page you'll see it's chock full of repetition, dead-end discussions, and accusations without merit (and a handful with), which over the course of a month resulted in very little progress. I do not doubt the OPs honest intentions, but I doubt they went through that talk page before submitting their request; had they done so, they would've either shown a bit more patience with my edits, or asked for ANI involvement in any of a number of other matters.

    François Robere (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • @François Robere: Instead of trying to get your changes into the article by brute force you should have tried WP:DRN and/or started a formal WP:RfC (asking for wider input, and increasing the chances of getting a neutral article). But edit-warring is never acceptable, even if you're right and everyone else is wrong. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, but I have. For example, I asked for WikiProject History's attention several weeks ago. As for edit warring: I challenge you to look at the article's history and tell me I did anything unusual, or more importantly: wrong. The only difference you'll see is that I make infrequent WP:BOLD edits, while others make many small ones, but I don't "edit war" over them afterwards. François Robere (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my opinion, User:François Robere should be blocked for long-term edit warring. This might be avoided if he will respond here and promise to make no more edits of this article without a prior consensus on the talk page. (The history is full of his reverts, and there's a variety of people on the other side). EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @EdJohnston: The article is fully protected for a week so a block wouldn't be too effective. I am concerned about what's going to happen after the protection expires given that FR continued to revert after this report was opened. I'd support a lengthier block or a voluntary WP:1RR restriction on that article. --NeilN talk to me 02:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? Me, of all people? I have more edits on the talk page trying to reach consensus than probably anyone else ([21]), and I did get it for some of my changes (see below for an example). Plus I'm probably the only one who tried to limit his edits per week out of their own volition just to give others some time to react.
    Consensus and/or attempts to reach a consensus per edit:
    • The first was discussed here. Three days passed without a reply (from an otherwise active) before I removed the material. The material was then reintroduced, still without discussion. This time I didn't remove it, just tagged it. The other editor then removed the tag, again without discussion. Is this edit warring? If it is, then what you're essentially saying is that you're not allowed to even tag a text if the other editor stopped discussing it mid-way, because "there's no consensus".
    • The second edit was per consensus: [22][23][24][25] (the last one is from the reverting editor).
    • The material in the third edit was not discussed by anyone, including the adding editor, so there wasn't any "consensus" to begin with. Again - how is that "edit warring"?
    • I can go on and on. For example, I can show you an edit I've done unopposed two weeks ago; the material was later reintroduced by an uninvolved editor (who I can only assume wasn't aware of the discussion and consensus). Yet now I wouldn't think of repeating that edit, just because someone might shout "vandalism". Consensus only works here if things "settle down" long enough to implement whatever the group decided (which is sort of what I tried to encourage by not editing every single day), but if others just keep adding and removing things in the same paragraph several times a day then it's practically impossible to reach consensus, not to say to maintain it. I mean - have you seen the talk page? 21 out of 25 sections are about this single [article] section, and the article went through some 400 revisions just this month - 15 revisions a day, most of which by only two editors, of which I'm not one ([26]). It's impossible to keep up.
    • That being said, there is wide agreement on what should and shouldn't be in the article - and you can see the diffs above for an example; it's mainly those two editors who are opposing change. In fact, I'm convinced that if you ask the dozen or so editors involved in the article what they think about my revisions, you'll see my suggestions have broader support than the current text. Indeed, no other editor but these two and the OP had ever reverted my changes, at least AFAICR. If you still think that I infringed on the consensus, then be my guest and block me, but for decency's sake block everyone else as well - that article is a nightmare to work on.
    François Robere (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and a PS: You said something about me continuing to "revert" after Thomas's request was filed? That's not true. My last "reversion" there was made 1:15h before he filed his - the rest was a tag (which was immediately removed by one of the editors I mentioned); a new reference (which was immediately removed by the same editor); and a quote that was in most revisions in the last month and a half and was never up for deletion. Was this what you were referring to? François Robere (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'll say few words here. The editor in question indeed made multiple reverts and volume alterations to the article without reaching an agreement with others. But in my view, the difficulty with François lies in his firm belief and unconscious rejection of any messages that may challenge his opinion. I think he noticed that editors are tired of arguing with him, his talk page messages started to be ignored, and then he let to be carried away a little. I never observed him acting like this before so please take this into consideration during the evaluation. Thank you GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You wanted to remove the IPN mention? I agreed. You wanted to remove Bauer's quote? I agreed. You wanted positive examples? I agreed. You mentioned negotiations? I looked them up. Saying I'm "inflexible" is just dishonest. I am inflexible about very specific things: characterization persecution of Jews by Poles as a "historical conflict" based on "faith disputes and economic issues"; asserting that we should avoid writing the historical truth because it will hurt some people's feelings; framing a discussion in racial terms (ie who's Polish, who's Jewish etc.) - these things I am very inflexible about. Everything else is debatable. François Robere (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    François Robere, you don't get to pick what reverts "count". [27] As soon as you were notified of this report you should have stopped editing there. Will you voluntarily accept a WP:1RR on that article? --NeilN talk to me 14:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    You see? This is why I like visiting the good folks at ANI - there's always something new to be learned here (and usually something most Wikipedians don't even know about. Well done!).
    Regarding the edit you cited, here's the consensus regarding that source or the position it expresses: [28][29][30][31][32] Frankly, I don't even know who removed it - it was there in some form for several weeks now. Any other edits that draw your attention?
    Regarding your suggestion - as I already mentioned, I already limited myself to 2-3 edits a week at the most, which is <1RR anyway (but thanks for elucidating what counts as a "revert" in the obscure scriptures of Wiki law).
    Now a couple of question:
    1. If there's no particular group of edits that draw your attention that I can't show is rooted in consensus, how does this affect the OP's submission?
    2. Having essentially "swam against the tide" in this case, with two opposing editors putting a large volume of changes (400< /month) while neglecting consensus procedures (including more reversals than I ever made that I just didn't report), will you be suggesting the same limitation to other editors as well? If they continue like that, against everyone else's wishes, this thing will be back in ANI soon enough. François Robere (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the two other editors I mentioned left a comment here earlier supporting 1RR. [33] I was already replying in the "edit conflict" view when they decided to retract it. The other editor also suggested "pausing" for a while. [34] I've no objection to either; my only worry is that at some point after the block is lifted people will start raking edits again, and the article will quickly morph back to what it was, which most of the editors involved (8 out of 12, give or take) found inadequate. François Robere (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Just one note, all someone has to do is scroll down the edit history of the article to see how busy you were deleting and altering huge chunks of text, and cluttering the talk page with multiple "recommendations" for change, way too much for anyone to sift through. Anyone else would be blocked by now for edit warring, but for some reason, this just keeps going, and getting worse until the article got locked. --E-960 (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, I made WP:BOLD edits that were thoroughly explained ([35][36][37]) and immediately reverted by you - only you - without explanation. Then you filed an ANI against me, which was rejected. Finally, after reverting my changes (both big and small - you didn't even let me tag a source, remember?) you started amassing edit, ignoring the discussion and ignoring the consensus. At the moment it's just you and GizzyCatBella who think the article is not "Polish" enough - Nihil Novi is a bit here and a bit there, PoeticBent disappeared, and the other eight editors including myself expressed views which clearly oppose your own. But you keep editing 8-10 times a day, restoring material and rephrasing material to try and push your POV.
    As for "clutter", both you and GizzyCatBella started more sections than I did. I only started - what, three sections? But you call this "clutter". Add that to the list of claims you made against me that didn't pan out (including the ones from today about your disappearing sources and supposed "sanitation" [38][39]). François Robere (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    EdJohnston, I see little acceptance that they were edit warring FR's responses and it looks like a refusal to accept a WP:1RR restriction. One week block? --NeilN talk to me 20:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, I'm not saying the dynamics there weren't... shall we say, counter-productive; what I am saying is that I didn't initiate any of it, I merely tried to maintain a consensus that was already reached against a tide of edits by users who didn't mind it. As I said - if you think a block is due, do it - but you'll have to block several other editor as well, as this hardly encompasses just these two. François Robere (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @François Robere: I don't quite get why you won't accept a WP:1RR restriction. --NeilN talk to me 21:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @NeilN: I told you, I already did so on my own volition before this thing even started (though with a different definition of "reversion"). In fact, I've no problem not editing the text at all (as it is almost every change I make gets reverted by these two, so what's the difference?) - I rather trust my ability to conduct the whole thing from the talk page - but I want the guarantee that something will change in the dynamics there. WP:Consensus has to be respected. I've already avoided the article for a week once before, and you know what happened? The section was completely different - reverted, actually - contrary to everything we agreed on just a week before. If you're only suggesting to sanction me then this whole thing will happen again in a week or two with one of the other editors, and then what's the point? If we're already here - just 1RR everybody and take it to mediation - there's support for that anyway. François Robere (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:NeilN, I agree with the one-week block. If François doesn't believe he was fairly treated by the other editors he needs the usual steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Continuing to revert isn't a solution. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    EdJohnston, "edit warring" isn't a one person's thing. What you're saying is that instead of looking at the whole situation (and I think I gave plenty of reasons to do so already), possibly forcing 1RR on everyone (which, as I said earlier, isn't a bad idea), you're going on a "first reported, first served" basis. This won't change the dynamics in that article or any other (again, there's an 8:2 consensus in that article against those too, and others also reverted their material as late as today afternoon [40]), just make it a race to ANI in an attempt to influence content disputes. François Robere (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jsrkiwi reported by User:Neil S Walker (Result: Declined)

    Page
    Novichok agent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Jsrkiwi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 20:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "Removed statement that is disputed by academics"
    2. 13:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC) ""Generations of chemical weapons" is not a generally accepted classification"
    3. 12:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Removed invented statement"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 14:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Novichok agent. (TW)"
    2. 14:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "/* March 2018 */ +"
    3. 20:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Novichok_agent. (TW)"
    4. 20:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "/* March 2018 */ Talk:Novichok_agent#Fourth_generation"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 14:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Fourth generation */ new section"
    2. 20:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Fourth generation */ +"
    3. 20:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Fourth generation */ —"
    Comments:

    Continues to revert without engaging in discussion opened on article talk page. Position is overwhelmingly repudiated by reliable sources. Behavior indicates that he intends to continue reverting repeatedly without discussion. Neil S. Walker (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Neil S Walker: I accept and understand that my approach to this was improper and abrupt and would accept any warning related to that. Clearly I erred particularly with regard to not engaging with the "4th Generation" talk. However I stand by my revised edit (i.e. the second attempted removal which was limited only to reference to weapon generations) as the exact understanding of the characterisation of "generations of chemical weapons" is not uniform between different academics or regions. Further to this, attempts by various institutions to implement exact classifications (although not "generations" in this case) have again not been successful in the sense of producing a uniform classification. At the very least I would say that the "4th generation" statement should outright state according to which characterisation schedule. Jsrkiwi (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You began—despite your claim to be an expert in the field of chemical warfare—by saying that the term was "invented", i.e. fictional, imaginary, spurious, and you deleted it. When shown that it was in use, you claimed that it was not in general use and deleted it. When shown that it was in widespread use by scholars, academics and government, you said instead that the use of this, formerly imaginary, term was instead a matter of hot dispute by academics. You have not offered a single example or piece of evidence for any of your claims. Your tendentious editing is the problem here, which you again fail to address convincingly in your comment above. Neil S. Walker (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neil S Walker: Regarding the first point related to fact, I've talked to colleagues this morning who agree that the generational classification stated within the article is based on a chronological of USSR weapons development and is therefore inconsistent with the general use of the word "generation" as used in both weapons grouping and other areas e.g. pharmaceuticals. This type of classification is not useful (other than to historians in placing the development timeline) as such generations imply similarities other than purely period in time. In addition, it is our understanding (although we may need to confer with others further) that Russia itself only recognises three generations of chemical weapons, as they categorise the generations based on the type of harm rather than a simplistic chronology. Regarding your second point on actions taken, this was largely on the basis of ignorance with respect to the talk pages. Jsrkiwi (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    talked to colleagues... it is our understanding... we may need to confer with others Your fallacious appeal to authority may also be an appeal to non-authorities: for all anyone knows, you work in a chip shop and your colleagues are the potato peeler and the pot washer. (Actually, I know that you don't work in a chip shop. But I also have reasonable doubt that you are a recognised "expert in the field of chemical warfare".) Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neil S Walker: To reiterate, I recognise my approach to this edit (whilst I stand by its factual basis) was improper and in breach of Wikipedia's rules and principles (largely due to ignorance of talk pages), and for that I apologise.
    Question: on statements of fact, is it acceptable to ever quote oneself? I'm asking this question not for this particular case, but for general cases which are directly applicable to someone's current study prior to publication. Or should one wait until something concrete is ready to be cited? Jsrkiwi (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to citing yourself, you may find WP:SPS, WP:SELFCITE, and WP:EXPERT useful. Neil S. Walker (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Jsrkiwi edit warring isn't acceptable even if you are right. Further, argument from authority isn't very convincing around here. Why have you been edit warring? Do you know that over WP:3RR you will get blocked, and you may still be blocked before that? Widefox; talk 14:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Widefox: At the time of the multiple reversions, I was unaware of WP:3RR, and further to that I was in ignorance to both talk pages in general and the talk page in question. I assumed at the time (due to lack of knowledge of both the talk pages and wikipedia's procedure, principles, rules etc) that the right action was to reaffirm the action of deletion. Clearly in hindsight (largely on the basis of better knowledge of how wikipedia operates) I accept that was wrong, and have apologised above in this string.Jsrkiwi (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Jsrkiwi be aware WP:3RR states A warning is not required, ..., together with the general principle that ignorance of the rules doesn't exempt blah blah applies, although you're clearly indicating you won't repeat. Widefox; talk 14:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the timelines, I cannot see that Jsrkiwi was aware of our WP:3RR policy and still reverted before being reported here. Neil S Walker, do you have any evidence that suggests otherwise? --NeilN talk to me 14:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    That the editor has been editing since 25 May 2017 suggests otherwise, but I will defer to your decision. Neil S. Walker (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They have a total of 67 edits. --NeilN talk to me 20:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Meaningless, as well you know. Neil S. Walker (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not meaningless. If you think so, please review WP:BITE. --NeilN talk to me 20:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It has nothing to do with BITE. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you over this, we both know that Jsrkiwi is not by any stretch of the imagination a newcomer. You made a decision, I told you I defer to it. If you don't want people to give you answers, don't ask questions like "Neil S Walker, do you have any evidence that suggests otherwise?" Neil S. Walker (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Declined Jsrkiwi is now aware of WP:3RR and talk pages. Editors are reminded to make sure new editors are knowingly breaking our policies before reporting them. NeilN talk to me 14:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What constitutes "a new editor"? Jsrkiwi has been on Wikipedia since at least 25 May 2017. Neil S. Walker (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    NeilN, a wording tweak at 3RR may be needed. Widefox; talk 14:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Widefox: Perhaps, but I take the present wording to mean that once you are warned (or at least aware) of edit warring, then future warnings are not required. The present wording also covers off "new" and IP editors who write "stop edit warring" variations in edit summaries. They don't need warnings. Admins need to use their common sense. Do we really want to drive off true newbies with a block for violating a rule they've never heard of? --NeilN talk to me 16:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I may have misread it, and seem to remember we have to give a warning (hence a feeling somewhere is inconsistent). It's moot in this case, as agree a block would only be punitive. Widefox; talk 16:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Isaw reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Isaw warned)

    Page
    Bill Warner (Political Islam) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Isaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "REentered source Canadian Citizens For Charter Rights And Freedomsas it was not shown to be anti-iskamic as claimed. aslso citing peer review Journal reference to warner specificially on the subject of Political Islam as defined by Warner. Debatable if SPLC is baised but in view of balance willl leave it there."
    2. 21:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830100976 by Doug Weller (talk) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Controversies_over_hate_group_and_extremist_listings states: n October 2016, the SPLC published a list of "anti-Muslim extremists", including British activist Maajid Nawaz and ex-Muslim activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The SPLC said that Nawaz appeared to be "more interested in self-promotion and money than in any particular ideological dispute", identified what it said were gaps and inconsistencies in his backstory, rebuking his assertion that British universities had been infiltrated by radical Islamists.[114] Nawaz, who identifies as a "liberal, reform Muslim", denounced the listing as a "smear", saying that the SPLC listing had made him a target of jihadists."
    3. 17:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "No reason that Canadian Citizens For Charter Rights And Freedoms is not as an acceptable a source as the two prior ones which denotes editorial bias by Drmies"
    4. 22:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 829849050 by Drmies (talk) It is OPINION that Warner opposes Islam. Warner himself says he opposes only political parts of Islam i.e. whger Islam imposes itself on other people. To describe him as anti Islam would necessitate evidence to support that opinion."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 21:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bill Warner (Political Islam). (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 19:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "/* More sources to check to see if we can use them */ c"
    Comments:

    Isaw (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Would like to know if I can add my comments here. Am trying to resolve this in talk page and this is the first time i have been involved in any edit war and would like some advice on how to proceed. I note sources from peer review journals are being called "Muslim hater" when they disagree with the opinion of those who oppose my inclusion of these sources.[reply]

    • Yes, you can certainly comment here, Isaw. But please sign your posts at the end like other editors do, not in front, and use colons to indent responses, as is practice here. It's extremely difficult to figure out when it's you talking on Talk:Bill Warner (Political Islam); I had to use the history. That said, the way to proceed when involved in an edit war is to not edit war, and especially to not violate the 3RR rule as you have done. See Doug Weller's warning on your page. Were you aware of the 3RR rule when you made your fourth revert (this edit)? Please respond below. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    • Not wanting to rush anybody, but I have to go to bed now. I'm going to assume Isaw didn't see the warning in time, as it came pretty late in the process and Isaw reverted again only four minutes later. Therefore, I have only warned Isaw for edit warring, not blocked. But please read the edit warring policy with care before you continue to edit, Isaw. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

    indent thank you for the editing advice. I hope my formatting is correct. No was not aware it was the fourth revert as i had edited a number of parts of the article. Didnt read his report until after. Sorry about my ignorance of the editing process. My main contention is one of balance. I believe ( and i may be wrong in this ) that had I posted an edit critical of Warner or calling him a "muslim hater" it would not be edited by the user in question. But that is my opinion. What is a fact however is that a second source from a peer review journal was deleted and this source was called a "another muslim hater" . This indicates clear bias on the editors part. I have tried to show the source SPLC can also be critiqued but I would not remove it as it is a source for an opinion even if it is a large commercial concern that rarely engages in civil rights litigation today and is not a peer review journal. I also accept Warner does not publish in peer review journals on this subject but he has published several books on the subject of Political Islam which reach a broader audience and which are also quoted by peer review journals and gray Publications such as Military reports relating to Political Islam. I have already posted some of these sources on the talk page. Should I bring this to the talk page and discuss it there? In the end what really matters is the statistical analysis of Warner on the Islamic "trilogy" is being questioned and I can't see any serious errors in his methodology. Instead he is just called names. I will hopefully discuss this tomorrow. thank you for your attention Isaw (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, please take all content and sourcing discussion to the talkpage, it doesn't belong on this board. Thank you for signing correctly and attempting to indent. That's not how to do it, though — you use colons to indent. I referred to WP:INDENT as a help page for you to read about how to use the colons, not as a code to accomplish the indenting. Click on the blue link and take a look at the help page. Though it may actually be easier to open any discussion page in edit mode and look for how experienced users use the colons. Once you look for it, I think it's pretty self-explanatory. Good night all. Bishonen | talk 23:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

    Page protected for 1 week. This is a content dispute. The fact that there was edit warring seems like a secondary consideration to me. I note that one of the participants can edit fully-protected articles due to being an administrator; I advise against this during the protection duration... and I don't want to hear that I protected m:The Wrong Version, it is what it is. Work out a solution on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Anachronist, I'm not interested in the right or wrong version either, but I believe your protection was uncalled for, especially for a whole week. There's not one but two admins editing the article, Doug Weller and Drmies, and I don't think "advising" either of them not to edit through protection, as you do, was called for either, as they are highly experienced and surely know all there is to know about protection. One is an arbitrator, the other an ex-arbitrator. Obviously it's a content dispute, yes, as most of the cases of edit warring brought here are. But Isaw is a new anti-muslim editor who seems to be here to right great wrongs, so I'm not sure what the chances are to "work out a solution" with them. There was already consensus against their editing and sourcing on the talkpage, though admittedly only four users were editing it (counting SPLC user1, who hasn't been heard for the last week). That's not the right time to protect, IMO. Please consider undoing your action. Bishonen | talk 09:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    @Bishonen: There was a time in the past when I protected an article due to a content dispute between several editors, and no less than 3 highly experienced administrators continued making unwarranted content edits for several hours after protection. I recall this was roundly criticized in a related ANI discussion. Therefore, based on that experience, I will always remind any involved admin not to edit an article after it's protected. I am sorry if you feel put off by that, but if it happened before in such a blatant manner, it could happen again. 1 week is a normal duration for a content dispute, although I have no objection to anyone reducing the duration or removing the protection altogether. As for the 'wrong version' comment, I confess I didn't pay attention to which version I protected; that comment was directed toward Isaw. I see now that I protected Isaw's version -- I understand now how that comment would be taken wrongly given the version that was protected. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Anachronist I am not an admin and have never used a talk page before this discussion.( This is the first time I goit an indent right). I do know what fair and balanced reporting means and calling people who disagree with their opinion a "muslims hater" denotes personal bias on this issue on the part of an admin.I feel experienced Admins are ganging up on me and I welcome your intervention and would like an experienced admin who has no bais to review the discussion we have about Bill Warner. Because I am inexperienced and am opposed by two admins and because one of them has openly admitted he regards Bill Warner and a peer reviewed source citing Bill Warner as "muslim haters" I would really appreciate a non biased judge. Also, I have posted most of my arguments to the Bill Warner Talk page and would suggest the discussion continue there. Isaw (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Anachronist I resent the personal attack on my by Bishonenwho describes me as "anti-muslim". THis seems to be becoming a habit in this discussion. I have no requirement to defend myself against personal defamation but I will say I have several Muslim friends I play sports with ( on the same team I might add). Nor am I trying to "right some great wrong" as claimed! I just detect a deal of bias and imbalance with respect to this Article. Making personal attacks on me when I raise that issue only convinces me all the more of the personal bias here. If anyone has an axe to grind here it is the people calling me, Bill Warner, and others "muslims haters" and editing out and references they make to sources which might depict Bill Warner in a positive light or as a valid and reliable source or as someone whose comments on Islam are respected as valid. When they don't like the person making a point rather than deal with the point they attack the person making it. Isaw (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    AnachronistI have since entered a discussion with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doug_Weller on my own talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Isaw#March_2018 and I dont know how to proceed as it seems clear to me that in advance of any edits and in advance of any discussion this person thinks I another muslims hater. The reason given is that I provide sources which might back up Bill Warners views. Ironically Doug Weller accuses me of 'starting with a false premise and treating it as though it were true' when he clearly admits his premise that I am anti Muslim is assumed by him to be true in advance of any discussion on editing of the article. As such I really do not know how to proceed because while I am prepared to and want ot discuss the merits or drawbacks of sources his motivation ( and probably the motivation behind this reporting of me) is his personal opinion that I am anti muslim. Not alone is this starting with a false premise but it is starting with a bais which appears to be the actual conclusion he is set on proving. I dont know how I am supposed to deal with that.Isaw (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Isaw: Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, and I hope you stay, in spite of your rocky beginnings. Please understand that the issues you raise should not be debated on this page. Here on this page, we are discussing an edit warring incident which has been resolved. If you feel that you are being personally attacked, take it up on WP:ANI. If you are having a content dispute, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for the various avenues you have. Edit warring is not one of those avenues. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Anachronist. Thanks and understood. Can you explain if the page is locked down how it was edited? "administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content", yet protected version contained improperly sourced material in a BLP)."? Maybe I should address this in the actual discussion in the talk page on content and sources? in absence of no direction from you in the next day or so that is what I shall do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaw (talk • contribs) 21:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sávy reported by User:Coderzombie (Result: Blocked 1 week)

    Page
    Super Cup (India) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Sávy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 11:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. 04:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC) ""
    3. 03:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 04:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Super Cup (India). (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    The user keeps adding the unsourced information page to Super Cup (India) and other Indian Football related pages. User's edits were reverted with explanation, but the user neither responds on talk page of the article or on his own page. The user has been warned by multiple users and has previously been banned for such behaviour as well. Coderzombie (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 1 week Coderzombie, if Sávy resumes the same behavior again after the block expires let me know and I'll block indefinitely. NeilN talk to me 13:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    NeilN Thank you. Coderzombie (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:81.131.97.255 reported by User:BangJan1999 (Result: Blocked 1 week)

    Page
    2017–18 UEFA Champions League knockout phase (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    81.131.97.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 22:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830291429 by S.A. Julio (talk)"
    2. 22:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830291063 by S.A. Julio (talk)"
    3. 22:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830290534 by S.A. Julio (talk)"
    4. 22:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830290329 by S.A. Julio (talk)"
    5. 22:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830290221 by S.A. Julio (talk)"
    6. 22:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830290101 by S.A. Julio (talk)"
    7. 22:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830289953 by S.A. Julio (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:
    • Blocked – for a period of 1 week Edit warring on this board. Cool. NeilN talk to me 22:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2600:8801:3300:9DF0:6481:316D:192C:2C84 reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Page
    Efforts to impeach Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    2600:8801:3300:9DF0:6481:316D:192C:2C84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 03:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830324736 by Srich32977 (talk)"
    2. 03:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830324432 by MrX (talk)"
    3. 03:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830321571 by Srich32977 (talk)"
    4. 03:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828367046 by MagicatthemovieS (talk)"
    5. 02:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "This info is fully related and belongs on this page..."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 03:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Efforts to impeach Donald Trump. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User:Codename Lisa reported by User:Headbomb (Result: )

    Page
    Template:Citation Style documentation/cs1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Codename Lisa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts

    (Simpler if you follow the edit history of the template above from March 1 onwards)

    1. 04:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Headbomb (talk): Reverted vandalism.."
    2. Consecutive edits made from 04:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC) to 04:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
      1. 04:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "Reverted illegitimate deletion of contents (vandalism). I do not entertain vandals with a discussion ... anymore."
      2. 04:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "Reinstated {{citation}}: Empty citation (help). The person committing illegitimate content deletion has so far refused to participate in the discussion and voice a concern. Hence, it is harassment."
    3. 16:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "Reverted mistake. Yes, {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) does CS1 too. Please look before reverting."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 16:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Template:Citation Style documentation/cs1. (TW)"
    2. [41]
    3. [42]
    4. [43]
    5. [44]
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    and many more. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    This has gone long enough. Codename Lisa keeps making changes without consensus to the documentation templates, despite having been warned multiple times to discuss the proposed change first and gain consensus for it first. The page was protected twice, but each time, as soon as page protection expires, Codename Lisa makes changes never gathering consensus for them, accusing people reverting to status quo of vandalism, and so on. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

    Hello.
    I was going to report to Headbomb to ANI right now. I was just short of pressing "Submit".
    I have made several totally unrelated changes to Template:Citation Style documentation/cs1, an ordinary navbox with nothing urgent about it. Some of them, experience tells me, are uncontroversial changes. Including:
    • Changing "audio and video podcats" to "podcasts" only (redundancy elimination)
    • Changing "audio and video serial" to "broadcast programs" (shorter)
    • Removing "academic" from "journals and papers". Really, they don't need to be academic for the purpose of a navbox.
    • Adding "and press releases" to the description of "{{Cite news}}" (This is eventually disputed in the talk page. I am not going to do it again.)
    • Adding the missing {{Citation|mode=cs1}} to the list.
    Headbomb is engaged in content deletion with fake explanation, and with no explanation whatsoever against said additions. WP:VANDTYPES defines this as vandalism. In Wikipedia, we do not proceed to treat a registered user like a vandal upon seeing this. We give him a chance to clear his or her act. To indulge him, I started a discussion thread in Help talk:Citation Style 1. While he did appear there, he limited his messages to condescending and rude repetition of demand for a discussion. (A person who demand discussion in the area designed for discussion is analogous to person demanding money while refusing the money someone is holding for him.)
    I perfectly understand a dispute: It is when someone for some reason, does not agree with me. But this isn't a dispute; Headbomb doesn't disagree; what he does is vandalism for impeding and his purpose is most probably harassment. More specifically:
    • In cases of the first three, Headbomb refused outright to register an objection whatsoever
    • In cases of last two (which are older), Headbomb resorted to lying first (in the form of "No, they don't do what you say"; well, they do). After dropping him a talk page message, he changed tactic to "this is not their recommended purpose".
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I see that Headbomb has been dishonest in Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page too.
    The correct discussion areas are:
    — Codename Lisa (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been explained multiple times, by multiple people WP:BRD is bold, revert, discuss. You were bold. You were reverted. But you do not discuss, nor do make any attempt at garnering consensus for any of your changes. No one (and I count about 8-10 people here) has support any of your changes you have proposed. You were well aware of the objections, but yet you reinstated your changes, again because of your WP:IDHT problem. You are the one editing against consensus. You can try to make this personal against me, but that ignores every one else who objected to your edits or reverted you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "But you do not discuss". Amazing! This person does not stop lying even now! I came to your talk page. I begged you to voice the reason behind your opposition. If you have any objection to the contents voice it right now! But if all you have is another "gain consensus before changing", I am sorry to inform you that I don't recognize you as the king of Wikipedia. —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And I asked specifically that you gain consensus for your edits. Can you show me where you even attempted to do that? Did you create an RFC about changing the wording from X to Y showing support for the new wording? Or something to that effect? I'm well aware that I'm not the king of Wikipedia, however, you're the one behaving like a bull in a china shop, making undiscussed changes to longstanding documentation pages of critically important templates. I'm not the only who characterized your edits as disruptive, nor is reverting to the status quo 'vandalism'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've said all have to say. (Even explicitly answered this specific question.) I will respond to you next time you made a comment on the contents and nothing else. —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That was tried by multiple editors, you ignored it (for instance I put my objections to including {{citation}} in the documentation over 2 days ago, with an invitation for discussion, you've ignored that completely), instead making this about me when it's about your refusal to discuss any of your proposed changes to the templates, changes which again don't have any support from anyone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If I may weigh in as another involved party: Lisa's claims that Headbomb did not discuss his reversions are inaccurate: see this initial clarification, with continued discussion here, which Lisa declined to participate in[a], while continuing to make changes to the template.

    4 separate people (including Headbomb and myself) explicitly told Lisa to discuss before making changes to the template: here, here, here, and here.

    This is rather clear-cut. I regret that the dispute has reached this point, but it's important that the offending editor understand the importance of not ignoring active discussion. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 06:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ This was before Headbomb did the revert which Lisa found problematic, but it's used to provide some context.
    "it's important that the offending editor understand the importance of not ignoring active discussion". I did not ignore. I stopped chaning "news articles" to "news articles and press releases".
    Someone once told me: On Wikipedia, when people have genuine objections, they summarize or copy and paste them; when they don't, they do diff bombardment to pretend they do. Diffs are like weasel words: They are good for tricking people into thinking there is substance, when there isn't.
    It is remarkable how to past two disputes (dispite all being color of the bike shed dispute) were remarkable in comparison to the third. They were about impacting how Wikipedians use citation templates. But this one? It is about reverting a redundancy fix (like "audio and video podcasts"→"podcasts"). It is quite clear that these people are looking for trouble, not contributors.
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=830340623"