"

 Israeli-Palestinian conflict protect? 

Yesterday there were relevent and reliably-sourced casualty figures added to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article, and some editors objected to this. It seems you were called in to quickly ""protect"" the page from editing, effectively blocking the inclusion of the figures. You cited ""edit warring,"" the more accurate term would be repeated reverts from those who did not like the figures for political reasons. There are casualty figures in all the conflict, war, battle etc. Wiki articles I have referenced, why not this one? Thanks   
RomaC, the edits which you tried to make were a set of statistics for one year only, which you attemepted to place in the first paragraph of an article describing a conflict of over sixty years. This article covers an issue of extreme sensitivity and complexity. The fact that your edits sparked so much conflict and opposition speaks for itself. Here at Wikipedia, we value the ability to achieve consensus, and to be fair to many viewpoints. And believe it or not, we often do achieve that at the article Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is not enough to disinegnuously claim that your figures were ""reliable,"" without addressing any of the underlying issues, or any of the conflicts which it clearly and immediately caused. 

To repeat: statistics for just one year of the conflict do not belong anywhere in the article's lead. there are a wide variety of figures which either side could quote, all in the name of objectivity, which would clear and unacceptably attempt to create a slant towards one side or the other. please note, this is why we are careful when making edit to be sure that we actually have consensus, rather than simply telling others that they should provide consensus.   

I strongly object to your calling me ""disinegnuous"" [sic]. You wrote on the article talk page that you agreed with Hertz1888, who argued that the statistics might be biased. Do you not regard Haaretz as a reliable source? Please explain more clearly why you feel that citing reliably-sourced and up-to-date civilian casualty statistics in an article about a war, battle or conflict is disingenuous. If you or any other editor want to add more statistics, covering a longer time period, then go ahead, but do not delete relevant content added by other editors. Yes, the edit ""sparked so much conflict and opposition"" but note also also that here at Wikipedia we do not determine what is ""fair"" through intimidation by numbers. There is a big difference between consensus and false compromise.   

I apologize if you felt I was offending you in any way. i only meant to describe the appearance of your edits, not to describe you personally in any way. if other editors deleted some edits, it is because they genuinely felt there was a reason to do so, and that the material was not beneficial or fair to the article. I responded to your concerns and issues further at the article talk page. thanks.    

Apology accepted, and I will also make my further comments on the article talk page. I am not a single-issue editor I get around a bit on Wiki, saw the Haaretz report and very much believe it is something very relevant to the article. I can't say I know for certain why other editors deleted the material, I try to assume good faith, we'll see.   
""repeated reverts from those who did not like the figures for political reasons"" - motive doesn't really matter, its still edit warring, its still disruptive. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Z-man 
The subject of this article is a deadly conflict, the lede is huge - and yet it contains no mention of the casualties. Clearly, there is something seriously wrong. As a result, your action here, while well-intentioned, looks highly partisan. Worse than that, it looks rather like like a cynical move to protect deniers, those who wish to cover up atrocities, the mass killings of (mostly) unarmed civilians, in many cases recognised by Western sources as war-crimes. If the events at this article really offend you, it would be a lot better to lock it at the alternative version. talk 10:39,