Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/User continually edit warring vital sources.

User continually edit warring vital sources.

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Justbecause5 (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. JesseRafe (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Twin films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• Article "Twin films" edit history
• Talk:Justbecause5#May 2017

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

1. User JesseRafe continually reverted my valid edits without discussing it in talk page first.
2. Insisted I was wrong and that I reread the rules and acted like every single edit was wrong because he disagreed even though it was cited.

Justbecause5 (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Continual one-sided, angry and unhelpful comments by user JesseRafe.
• The page we are in dispute about is always going under various changes. Should it be deleted or changed up for the better?

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. I am not the only user using Google Books and never denied doing an edit mistake, I did add back what I could but regardless you are removing all relevant examples based on opinions, not facts or any other cited stuff to back up causing an edit warring. Talking to this person is like talking to a brick wall: absolutely pointless. Justbecause5 (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
2. Agree. Above user clearly doesn't get citations, as they continuously use Wikipedia itself as a reference, formatted as an external link https and all. And then deny they did that. They cite to blogs and fan sites and then clamor that they are newspapers. They're using bare URLs to Google Books that don't even actually back-up any point they're making, such as this: [1] which is a terrible reference formattically but also doesn't prove anything! Yes, The Assignment and The Jackal belong on this list, but this reference doesn't attest to that at all, it just regurgitates prima facie information which doesn't even need to be cited. Further user is reverting all of my edits, including those fixing unambiguous mistakes he/she made that I fixed, such as [[Armor (2009)]] which is not a page, but I made a redirect and fixed the article to say [[Armor (film)]] but the above user, while denying ever doing anything wrong, keeps changing that link back to the non-existent page, what would have been a red link had I not fixed their error with a redirect and then replaced the wikilink in the article. User also blanked the introduction and then denied doing it. User also added OR and silly fancruft about television series which clearly don't belong in this article about films. User keeps uploading non-good source cites and won't recognize that just because Speed 2 and Titantic both have ocean-going ships in them are not candidates for the strictly defined criterion for this article. Yes, this article as a whole needs a trim and has a lot of OR and speculation, but by keeping in control and to a minimum of strong cases, it is better served. Antz and A Bug's Life being a good example, movies that are thematically and tonally different with only a tangential connection like Outbreak and 12 Monkeys are bad examples. I took the time to remove one at a time and which explanative edit summaries all the mistakes and explained my rationale and above user just did blanket reverts. And then user went further and removed all content from the page except the list. And then denied ever doing this (on their Talk page) and still denies that they are using Wikipedia as a source. Which they did for adding "Boa vs Python 2" or something to the Alien vs Predator/Freddy vs Jason entry. It's almost Twilight Zone-esque trying to communicate with this user when they deny all their actions, for instance they claim they tried to resolve the matter on their talk page above -- clearly that was an attempt to resolve the matter by me, not them, they have made no such attempts to discuss this on the article's talk page as they were implored to and per BRD cycle. JesseRafe (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Reject. Does not satisfy prerequisites to mediation #3 that the, "dispute is not exclusively about the behaviour of a Wikipedia editor," and #4 that the, "parties must have first engaged in extensive discussion of the matter in dispute ... and discussion only through edit summaries will not suffice." While there has been some discussion, once the conduct discussions have been filtered out there is very little discussion about the content issues. Even if this wasn't being rejected under #3 and #4 it would be rejected under #9, "the Committee has the discretion to refuse or refer back to other dispute resolution venues (e.g. dispute resolution noticeboard, third opinion, request for comment, or additional talk page discussion) a dispute which would benefit from additional work at lower levels of the dispute resolution process." A word of advice, however: Wikipedia has two dispute resolution paths: one for conduct disputes (speaking to an administrator or filing a complaint at ANI, along with some more specific processes) and one for content disputes (DRN, 3O, RFC, and here at formal mediation). They don't overlap. If you want to complain about what another editor does or has done as a behavioral matter and without resolving any content disputes, go the conduct path; if you want to deal with content issues without discussing behavior or anything else about the other editor, go the content path. But the conduct path isn't going to be willing to discuss or do anything about content and the content path isn't going to be willing to discuss or do anything about conduct and the content path will not allow a case to go forward if there is a conduct case pending. So, before deciding what to do next you need to decide whether you want to talk about one another or only about article content without mentioning or discussing one another. If you want to go forward with content dispute resolution, you both need to make a far more substantial effort to discuss the content issues before going to 3O, DRN, or returning here since all those processes require thorough discussion of the content issues before they will provide assistance. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)