Hi Jillaine, by blocks I just meant project protection, and by problems happening less I am referring to for example repeated attempts to keep adding back parents who we've decided were wrong.
This happens less now in pre-1500, thank goodness. One of the main causes was gedcom imports or other types of uncareful importing from people's private trees, but another thing which has changed is that the number and quality of the editors in pre-1500 has been restricted. We are now more consciously a group of people who know we have to work together and who more or less understand similar standards of proof. (In other words, by having that restriction we can potentially work with less of other types of restrictions?)
Also, I see no reason to believe there has been any kind of aggressive editing in the case which is under discussion here. I'd say it is an old popular theory, so an innocent mistake to at least some extent. We see these a lot, and particularly while I've been working on Domesday people nearly every single family has one or more which leave tell tale signs. It has probably come from dozens of imported gedcoms, and has probably been in wikitree for years.
What I think many people in pre-1500 now prefer to do is to leave a nice clear explanation about older theories and why they are wrong, or what doubts and ideas exist. I have not seen this approach fail yet. To be honest, it also seems like exactly the type of flexible genealogical article we should actually be writing. (I am not a fan of the big school project "they won't let me on Wikipedia" biographies, made of cut and paste internet trees and 19th century vanity publications.)