User talk:Bobby70

WP:3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on &]]. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly am not related to Woodstock of whom I have never heard.

Moreover, I have made only three edits to this page and only one is a revert.

I have not done original research. I have simply reported what was written in the Annals of Epidemiology and I have cited reliable source.

This block is unfair.

Concern about this indefinite blocking
I have concerns about the banning of Bobby70 as a suspected sockpuppet of Woodstock2010.

First, the banning was the work of Avraham, who, in my opinion, is very partisan in his attitude about circumcision. As Bobby70 was also editing in this field, there is a legitimate concern about conflict of interest in Avraham blocking Bobby70. There is evidence that Avraham used Bobby70's edit log to go through and delete everything that Bobby70 did on Wikipedia. Take, for instance, this edit: Avi's action here could be interpreted as an opportunistic move to get rid of a lot of information in the article that he did not agree with.

Secondly, though I am not able to comment on things such as identity of ISPs, the edit log of the two editors revealed significant differences. Woodstock2010 was more confrontational than Bobby70 whose bland descriptions of his edits made quite a different impression. Also, though both edited circumcision articles, there was some difference in the articles that they edited. My reading of their edit logs does not induce me to believe that Woodstock and Bobby are the same person.


 * Woodstock2010 
 * Bobby70 

I believe that the banning of Bobby70 should be investigated. Avraham is too partisan about circumcision to be involved in indefinitely banning a user he disagrees with. He has already been cautioned about the way that he has used his power as an administrator. See. Avraham may have made another error of judgement in this case and a newbie Wiki editor may have been treated unfairly.

I strongly believe that the indefinite banning of Bobby70 should be reconsidered. Michael Glass 00:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)