User:Tiamut/DE

disruptive editing at Lydda Death March:


 * April 30 22:24 = Jalapenos do exist adds that the number of deaths is "disputed" and range from a "handful" to over 300. I consider this to be a good faith edit by User:Jalapenos do exist, but strongly disagreed with the WP:UNDUE emphasis on and selective quotation of Morris. I agreed to having this information in a footnote with the main text reading "as many as 350" May 1 13:10 based on the two sources cited at the time: Norman Finkelstein and Nur Masalha. Accordingly, I integrated the information producing this edit (May 1 12:25 Many more sources supporting a figure between 335 and 355 have since come to light as the discussion progressed and were subsequently added.(See the five footnotes attached to this sentence at Lydda Death March at present for an idea of where we are now). But User:NoCal100 in particular has kept on insisting on highlighting Morris, and only one part of one of three writings Morris has made on this subject.
 * May 1 14:08 = selectively quoting "a handful" died in the main text of the lead using part of Morris' writings on this subject in 2003 (NoCal100)
 * May 1 15:35 = I move the info back into the footnote and add that Morris stated "hundreds" died in an earlier work.
 * May 1 20:43 = "a handful" is reinserted in the main text of the lead as part of a larger edit (User:Canadian Monkey - Note also that this is the second time this editor appears at an article I have created that was up for DYK to make largely unfounded POV complaints as I note here.)
 * May 1 22:35 = Huldra takes it out of the main text putting it in a footnote, per the discussion on the talk page (See the section Talk:Lydda Death March for a sample section regarding this issue (beginning about mid-way down).
 * May 2 01:41 = "a handful" is reinserted into the main text again. (NoCal100) Note that concerns raised on the talk page that this selective highlighting was WP:UNDUE were ignored. Instead of addressing the concerns raised, NoCal100 makes this edit simply recopying the ref already cited at the end of the sentence in the middle. This in no way addresses the argument about UNDUE raised on the talk. It is also a redundant edit not in line with the MoS.
 * May 2 03:00 = removes information sourced to Benny Morris (1989) that says "hundreds" died. (NoCal100)
 * May 2 03:34 = restores OR that is further sourced to a letter to the editor with the edit summary "do not remove well sourced information." (NoCal100) Note that talk page concerns raising concerns about WP:OR and WP:RS were ignored.
 * May 2 10:41 = the hook for this article which is queued to appear as a DYK is changed, adding "a handful" died as a lower estimate (User:Wehwalt)
 * May 2 11:52 = I move the info back into the footnote and add another source which was presented in the talk page discussion. Please note NoCal100 did not participate in that discussion until May 2 14:46. In other words, he was edit-warring without discussion. It can also be argued I was edit-warring, but I was not simply restoring material. I was engaged in discussion on the talk page and there was no opposition articulated to the arguments about UNDUE. No one restoring the "handful" material even bothered to respond. I also went on to add more refs attesting to the 335 to 355 casualty range that were provided by User:Ian Pitchford and User:Slim Virgin, and Ian added some too. Please note that while NoCal100 has now taken to insisting that the casualty figures are "disputed", he has not provided a source that says this, despite requests for one. The sources indicate that there is general agreement that the precise number of dead will never be known, with all of those providing a numerical estimate placing it between 335 and 355.
 * May 2 13:24 = I open a section at the DYK discussion page after going to check why the article still had not appeared when it was queued originally to appear today at 1:49pm GMT. After noticing that Wehwalt changed it without even bothering to notify me or anyone else involved in the discussion over the matter at the article, I posted to DYK talk asking that they intervene, since I could not change the hook back. Only admins can do that. I then left a message at Wehwalt's talk page expressing my disappointment with what he had done.

Finally, its worth recalling that User:NoCal00, who had been warned previously about WP:HOUNDING by User:Black Kite at WP:AE, has also been warned about edit-warring without discussion by User:Elonka under the WP:ARBPIA sanctions, and specifically cautioned that doing so in the future would result in a block. (See his talk page.) Here has he has done both of these things. Lydda Death March was my own creation and while NoCal100 claims he did not follow me there after I warned him against edit-warring at Ramot, I find the claim less than credible. Particularly since the explanation given was that he had Lydda Death March watchlisted as a redlink, and yet he has argued that the title is POV and that its use is not widespread and confined to "Arabs" and "pro-Arabs". You can see those statements in Talk:Lydda Death March, with this section representing the first post NoCal100 makes to the talk page after tagging the article with NPOV tag. The comment was made at 04:14am on April 30 (though its time does not now appear on the page itself). I created the article at 20:51 on April 29.