Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Swatjester/Questions for the candidate

message: I certainly believe you made an error that you won't concede. However, as this is exactly the sort of issue you'll face I'd ask you to look at these diffs on the talk page of Talk:List of massacres:
# (cur) (last)  20:11, November 17, 2007 Knulclunk (Talk | contribs) m (4,096 bytes) (What a crummy source. I'm no fan of this war,but this is silly. At least get the original Guardian article.) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 20:06, November 17, 2007 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (195,516 bytes) (→After 1945 - fix) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 20:05, November 17, 2007 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (195,516 bytes) (→After 1945 - add massacre) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 19:57, November 17, 2007 Knulclunk (Talk | contribs) m (195,266 bytes) (Undid revision 172126323 by Sarah777 (talk)) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 19:53, November 17, 2007 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (195,598 bytes) (take it to the talk page; DO NOT engage in edit warring) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 19:49, November 17, 2007 Michel Tavir (Talk | contribs) m (195,266 bytes) (→Aerial bombardments) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 19:48, November 17, 2007 Looper5920 (Talk | contribs) (195,266 bytes) (POV back at you...that ref is as biased as they come. No way do those two battles belong on this list.) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 19:43, November 17, 2007 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (195,598 bytes) (pov - discuss on talk page - i provided citations) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 19:34, November 17, 2007 Looper5920 (Talk | contribs) (195,266 bytes) (→After 1945 - removed Fallujah...it was a battle not a massacre) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 19:32, November 17, 2007 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (195,598 bytes) (→After 1945 - update) (undo)
You will see that I added Fallujah and it was immediately reverted twice by an editor and then by a different editor, again twice but this time he removed the entire list with his second revert. My addition was accompanied by a reference - unlike most of the others which were unreferenced yet remained with the 'citation request' tag. Do you think the immediate deletion of the Fallujah text constitutes edit warring (as I do) and that the culprits should be blocked?(Sarah777 (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ref you provided is an extremely biased source, and was unacceptable for inclusion. You violated 3RR and repeatedly inserted text that 3 other people told you was an unacceptable source. The edit warring came from you. Also, your incivility to Looper was unwarranted, especially as he is one of the most prolific and respected contributors to the military history project. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at User talk:Looper5920's attitude to his Talk Page. Thank God he's not an Admin who can abuse his position, eh? He seems to be a great fan of the US army too. So, what exactly is the Wiki-policy on User Talkpages? (Sarah777 (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:TALK and WP:USER. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically the way that User Talk pages work, is that if the person doesn't want you to be there, it's harassment for you to continue to irritate them there. They have a large amount of latitude to remove whatever they want from their own talk pages.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Whether you see it or not it is extremely relevant. Arbcom will adjudicate in cases where assessment of "reliable sources" is at the core; as they are in nearly ALL disputes where POV is being alleged. And his assessment of the relative "rightness" of my edits v Looper's edits seems to me to indicate fairly serious inbuilt (perhaps unconscious) bias - the remarks about the Guardian tend to confirm this view. (Sarah777 (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fallujah Question