It's notable that we cover Walsh's editing in his (short) article, which, as I remarked on the talk page may well be WP:UNDUE. It's also of note that the article misrepresented what he had said, and it does not seem unlikely that the text was inserted by a political opponent. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 23:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for looking into it. One of the downsides of Wikipedia, and of much Wikipedia reporting in the press, is that "politician edits own biography" is an instant headline, whereas "unknown political opponent acting under Wikipedia's cover of anonymity squats on politician's biography for months to make them look bad" isn't. AndreasJN46600:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another important point is that edit warring is newsworthy, but absence of edit warring is not. I monitor several thousand pages, and on those pages edit warring is pretty much non existent. So edit warring is very much the exception rather than the rule. Bahnfrend (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I too see little of it in my thousands, but seeing someone else being clearly, consistently vigilant is grounds for unwatching. Thus, I watch few controversial ones. Perhaps someone has formally studied a less biased sample. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to In the media