Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Kapap

What's the dispute? Below
The following conversation began on the discussion page of the Kapap article:

Krav Maga/Kapap differences
Krav Maga is taught to Israeli army recruits. It's a basic fighting system that can be quickly absorbed and picked up. Kapap is taught to the Israeli special forces and Yamam and takes quite a while longer to learn. Without sounding too biased, Kapap is a more complex system than Krav Maga.

It might be useful to visit this link for a good explanation on the differences between the two....

http://www.usadojo.com/articles/krav-maga-not-alone.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.156.13.13 (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

My apology, but I must differ with you on this. Kapap and Krav Maga have very little in common, and there are several misleading pieces of information in this Wiki-article. For instance, Avi Nardia was a guest instructor in the YAMAM only a few times at best. He was never operational or even completed the 8 month training program. No other instructor claiming to be an expert in Kapap has ever taught the YAMAM anything. Krav Maga (in advanced forms) are all that is taught to ANY Israeli anti-terror organization, that's it. While Kapap is Krav's predecessor, they only bear common lineage. Even in this, it is only because many who worked in early Krav Maga, were also involved previously in Kapap. The Israelis have a keen eye for what will work tactically, this is why even modern Krav Maga evolves. I respect what Mr. Nardia is doing in his revival of the term Kapap, but PLEASE, let's not mix this issue and keep the facts straight. --63.226.23.69 (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kapap"

No reply has been posted, yet the unregistered user from IP address: 68.197.235.233 continues to revert all additional references from valid 3rd party sources. I have made comments on my reversions asking them to stop doing so or I would report it. They have not stopped. I also then flagged the article for Conflict of Interest citing them as the potential issue. Still they continue to revert/delete anything from sources other than the ones from or referring to the same persons or organization. If they do not stop, I believe they should be banned from making changes. The article appears promotional in nature and the individual who is the main reference has a questionable professional reputation. I did not remove his promtional materials, only added new sources of information. The person who wrote the 3rd party article I have added is a close friend and student of another person with whom the 'Founder of the Revived' organization has a personal issue due to this Founder's questionable and unverified claims.--KravTeacher (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)