User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2015/September

Orphaned non-free image File:EP-Part-II-Lovedrug.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:EP-Part-II-Lovedrug.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter
The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:


 * , who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy.  A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
 * , second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
 * , first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany.  Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
 * , second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
 * , from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
 * , from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
 * , from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
 * , also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

, and  11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

For my own benefit . ..
Hey, Guerillero. I just saw your brief comment at the SPI/Alakzi discussion. That discussion has run its course, and the case is now closed, so I really don't want to pursue any further discussion specific to it. That said, I have participated in 8 or 9 SPI discussions in my time on Wikipedia, and have successfully initiated 5 or 6 cases (to the best my recollection), with one that languished and died for lack of any CU/admin attention. With that experience, I believed I had a pretty decent grasp of SPI standards, but now I'm not so sure. I have always operated under the assumption that in order to be subject to the use of checkuser, and blocks and other SPI remedies, that the alleged "sock" had to not only have edited using two or more accounts, but that the sock's edits had to involve some form or actual misconduct, e.g., gaming an XfD, RfA, or RfC !vote, or attempting to otherwise demonstrate a false show of support of multiple editors for an action or process when in fact only one person supported it. Is the element of specific misconduct not required to initiate a checkuser investigation? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see this Dirtlawyer1, but I am currently on vacation. Maybe I will have time to answer your question at the end of the week -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Guerillero, no problem. It really is just for my own wiki education, so it can wait.  Enjoy your downtime!  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, Guerillero, could you make a little time to discuss my question above sometime this week? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have some time now. Here are some thoughts that might answer your question, Dirtlawyer1.
 * In the eyes of WP:SOCK, misconduct is a fairly wide net. It includes most everything that isn't included in WP:SOCK and, for the most part, those are disclosed except for §Privacy. Privacy accounts, both disclosed to arbcom and not, are given a fair amount of latitude if they stay in the mainspace. When someone has more than one account that operates in project spaces many community members, including some CUs, see that as misconduct even if the two accounts don't "cross".
 * If there is evidence that an account connected to a blocked user (WP:Block Evasion) no specific misconduct beyond that is needed for a check. The same is true for banned users.
 * Checks can be run if a second account isn't known if there is evidence that this isn't their first rodeo.
 * I hope this helps -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  21:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is helpful, but I was under the impression the WP:SOCK required something akin to intentional misconduct, say, block evasion, gaming an XfD or RfC, or otherwise manipulating a situation through the false impression that they are someone other than another identified registered account. For instance, I have a wiki-friend who has had a registered account for eight or more years, but routinely edits from IP addresses during the work day, and the IPs are all readily identifiable by (a) the addresses and (b) the subjects of the articles he edits.  He has never participated in any type of discussion as an IP, nor edit-warred as an IP.  Is that a problematic scenario?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

IMO no. I use an IP from time to time the problem in this case was the similarity of accounts and viewpoints it isn't uncommon to create a sock to accomplish an ends. If you look at the Shraddha Kapoor page it was attempted not once but twice to get that article to featured article sts. People thought that webdrone was the puppet and this would have been reinforced by the sock usage of the secondary account to evade the block.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I also think that this isn't an issue. It falls squarely in WP:SOCK. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124;  My Talk  17:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * So, basically, you can do whatever the fuck you want; you could've spared us the details. And, of course, by "evidence" you mean conjecture. Were you one of the four who performed a CU on my account? And have more checks been performed since? Alakzi (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So, basically, you can do whatever the fuck you want
 * No. We are bound by the local and global CheckUser policies. Please take a look at WP:CHECK
 * Were you one of the four who performed a CU on my account?
 * Nope
 * have more checks been performed since?
 * AUSC is that way, but I will spare you the email and tell you that the Subcomittee isn't going to tell you how many checks have been run on your account, who the CUs are, and/or when they were performed.
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  21:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:CHECK is little more than wishy-washy nonsense. "Potential disruption" and "legitimate concerns"? Laughable. Subcomittee isn't going to tell you how many checks have been run on your account, who the CUs are, and/or when they were performed.. Right then, no accountability whatsoever, nor a sense of duty to the accused. Why don't you collectively fuck off this site? Alakzi (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Alakzi, it appears you neglected to read the [| legal document] you agreed to when starting your account, Be aware:

Any content you add or any change that you make to a Wikimedia Site will be publicly and permanently available. If you add content or make a change to a Wikimedia Site without logging in, that content or change will be publicly and permanently attributed to the IP address used at the time rather than a username. Our community of volunteer editors and contributors is a self-policing body. Certain administrators of the Wikimedia Sites, who are chosen by the community, use tools that grant them limited access to nonpublic information about recent contributions so they may protect the Wikimedia Sites and enforce policies. This Privacy Policy does not apply to all sites and services run by the Wikimedia Foundation, such as sites or services that have their own privacy policy (like the Wikimedia Shop) or sites or services run by third parties (like third-party developer projects on Wikimedia Labs). As part of our commitment to education and research around the world, we occasionally release public information and aggregated or non-personal information to the general public through data dumps and data sets. For the protection of the Wikimedia Foundation and other users, if you do not agree with this Privacy Policy, you may not use the Wikimedia Sites. (emphasis mine). Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Checkusers and oversighters are kept accountable by each other, the AUSC, the Arbitration Committee, the Ombudsmen, and, at times, the foundation. Just this year we removed the permissions of a checkuser for misuse. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  22:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've got complete trust in the Politburo to keep their members in check. WML is an outlier; he was dismissed because the case was widely publicised, it involved a politcian, and it made the WMF look bad. Pull the same shit on me, and it's no problem at all, is it? What is it that I've done to deserve being CheckUser'ed - four times, no less? Your position is indefensible. Alakzi (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok well you agreed to trust them with that info and the discretion when to, bitching about it doesn't do anything but just piss yourself off more. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've got complete trust in the Politburo to keep their members in check.
 * The OC is made up of users from a number of projects and the Functionaries/Arbs agree on almost nothing. There are no cabals of groupthink here that have regular purges to assure political purity. We are an adhocracy as much as everything else on this project.
 * Pull the same shit on me, and it's no problem at all, is it?
 * Your CU has nothing in common with the Chase Me Case.
 * What is it that I've done to deserve being CheckUser'ed
 * I assume that pointing you to the SPI isn't going to help my cause any so here is the tl;dr version. You and another account were talking in what appeared to be the same "written voice", on the same subject, in the Wikipedia space. That raised red flags and got reported to SPI. A check was then ran.
 * This is the way that the English Wikipedia has decided to use the checkuser tool over the past 15 years. Your views of how the tool seem to jive more with how the German Wikipedia conceives how the tool should be used. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  23:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You should just stop talking. Alakzi (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course it is required; and of course there was nothing of the sort. They had a little talk on asschat, came to the conclusion that I'm a sock of one of the Bad Guys and started running checks on me. They're dishonest and immoral. Alakzi (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Right... -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  21:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: Summer 2015

 * —MediaWiki message delivery (talk) delivered on behalf of Imzadi1979 05:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom questions / discussion
Hello Guerillero,

You wrote this:
 * I am reading evidence as it comes it and trying to make it more of a discussion of what is going on than a one way evidence dump that the arbs read and act on. While questions are directed to a particular editor anyone can answer them. Note, please do not use this as a place to argue, debate or rehash conflicts. If you disagree with someone's response, post your answer. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you please tell where we can answer to you ? Is this just "below" your question or is it somewhere else ? Pluto2012 (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC) below, please -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  17:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December
''This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.'' As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum@undefinedwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,

Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
 * ✅ --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  17:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

''Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

NRMs
First, I am grateful for the clarification of the NRM motion. Second, and I very much hope that this doesn't strike you the wrong way, but the list of what qualifies as an NRM, by at least some standards, is more than a little scary. User:John Carter/Alphabetical list of new religious movements is the beginnings of a list which I will probably, eventually, turn into something a bit more closely resembling WikiProject Jainism/Prospectus. But, yeah, as indicated there, somewhere, in the Lewis encyclopedia, the whole freaking New Age movement itself is counted as an NRM. That could mean, at least theoretically, that most of the themes at Template:New Age Movement, particularly those which have developed since 1929, probably qualify as part of the New Age, and thus, possibly, as part of the broader NRM field. At least theoretically. Whether that is intended or even desirable is another thing entirely.

I say this not because I necessarily want what some might think is pretty much every original philosophical idea of the past 50 years or so to somehow qualify under the sanctions. I'm not sure I would dislike that, but that isn't the reasoning behind it. But the definition of terms here, and the wide variety of things which have been included under this particular term of NRM, make determining the boundaries a bit of a priority. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are casting a fairly wide net. Pseudoscience and Alternative Medicine are already under DS. Many of the topics that you have brought up so far fall under one of those two topic areas. As for the list of redlinked NRMs, those are the type of articles that attract POV pushers of all stripes. It would be useful to be able to control the topic area so that we don't have to piecemeal our way through it. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  23:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I do not myself think that necessarily everything I mentioned should qualify for discretionary sanctions. But the Lewis encyclopedia I mentioned is probably at least one of the best for that topic area, even if it is somewhat older. And I have no objections of any kind to having DS help "control" a topic area. And, I suppose, someone arguing for belief in Atlantis could potentially be arguing for either pseudoscience or NRMs, but, if they're both covered under DS, who cares which is cited as cause for sanctions.
 * Alternately, I suppose, if the NRM DS pass, maybe the alt med and pseudoscience and NRM sanctions could be "lumped together" into one sanction area. Considering the sometimes remarkable degree of overlap between them, maybe that would be best. And, fWIW, the user space page is still primarily not linked because I realized it would be problematic, considering the really short length of some of the entries. But, at the same time, for say Jainism, being able to find reference sources which can provide some idea of the current academic view is probably at least useful for a lot of the more contentious topics. Anyway, sorry for taking up so much of your time. John Carter (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't a problem at all. (Unless there is a logical union between topics, we normally don't merge them) -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  01:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Input please
Hi User:Guerillero. Hope all is well! You've been involved in music related WikiProject's and I'd love some insight. I'm talking to someone on my talk page right now in an effort to keep the article for an indie band, Five Year Mission, non-promotional. This editor created the original, rather promotional version of the article, which I have since rewritten. They are interested in listing every track on all five of the bands albums. While the band itself is notable, I am not so sure that their albums are individually, and I'm not really sure how far it should go with listing the tracks. People can go to Amazon to see those. Any thoughts? If so, I'd love it if you can comment here. Thank you for your HELP! :) Missvain (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am going to look at this today. Wrock for Star Trek sounds exciting. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  18:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) Missvain (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

IP user
To be fair, it is possible the IP user was not an established editor, but was instead popping over from the Sea Lions of Wikipedia (SLOWP) blog. A lot of times the comment sections for top blog pieces serve as a hub of discussion for anti-GamerGate editors and observers. Currently, the comment section for the top blog piece is discussing Tarc's ban and comparing it to the Lightbreather and GG cases. My clarification request is also included in the comments. Some of the people commenting have names suggesting they are anonymous editors. Not that this is definitely someone from there, but it could be and that may mean the IP user is not an active Wikipedian.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * fab -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

If I'm not allowed to stop those obvious sockpuppets then why don't you?
Could it be because you agree with them?

Ah! The REAL wikipedia policy! 70.56.26.237 (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Right....a brand new account starts editing the fucking arbcom page right before Ryulong gets topic banned and then is just as OCD fucktarded as Ryulong. All you need is an IQ above room temperature to know it is Ryulong.

Just as a hint, Ryulong's data has been purged from the system. A CU won't do a thing. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  05:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter. The cabal, and they are a cabal, ban any new editor they want by accusing them of being socks based on "behavioral" evidence (i.e. no evidence). PetertheFourth's first edits were to the Arbcom enforcement board and he is a Gamergate SPA just like Ryulong. He is an obvious sockpuppet who was created to avoid Ryulong's incoming ban. Tarc has admitted to sockpuppetry in the area as well.


 * How many of these anti-Gamergate editors have been banned for sockpuppetry?


 * The difference is that there are a lot of pro-Gamergate people, but few nutbags who buy into the "Gamergate is about raping women" garbage. That's obvious by comparing the number of subscribers from KotakuinAction to Gamerghazi (51k vs 8.5k). That's why they have to constantly ban both new and old editors (the latest being the 9-year old account of Ben McLean from Gamergate articles). 70.56.26.237 (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Pardon my user page stalking, but I have to say, the argumentum ad reddit is a new form of which I am quite fond. Dumuzid (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No worries, I fully expected one of the sock cabal to show up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.26.237 (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

65.78.150.19 (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for that IP dude being rude.
Please believe me when I say Not everyone who follows Gamergate is like that guy. I was just browsing WP for anything interesting and happened to notice that little kerfuffle, so I guess I'll apologize on his/her behalf. Illegitimi non carborundum; have a pleasant day. 65.78.150.19 (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Madotsuki the Dreamer
Hey, just curious - why was he globally locked? Is it because of some of the stuff here? There was some talk on Reddit that he'd been around under a few different accounts like User:MoonMetropolis, which made sense after reading the post since their edit styles were pretty much identical. (I remember MM because I'd had to go through and clean up after them and I still haven't finished with all of their stub articles. *sigh*) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't tell you much due to the private data/information involved, but I suggest you read this week's signpost (below) -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ( THUD ) That was the sound of my jaw hitting the floor. Wow. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you please explain your reason for blanking the Madotsuki talk page? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It no longer serves a useful purpose because their only unblock vector is through the WMF. My response to the next question you are going to ask is no. I am not going to unprotect or unblank the page. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  18:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just thinking of transparency here. Would you please consider unblanking the page. I can see no reason to blank it and you certainly haven't given one. What's your rationale? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that you didn't read my reply to you when I said "My response to the next question you are going to ask is no. I am not going to unprotect or unblank the page." There is no argument for transparency here because the community cannot unblock. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  18:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I read your reply. I'm talking about ready access to the historical record, not block-appeals. Why did you hide the talk page? What possible use is that to anyone? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I realise you're busy but when you have a moment I'd appreciate an answer. -Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom "Template" Issue
Is this better? In all fairness, the template was there due to the excessive template breaks that were occurring on the page earlier (see page history for more details). --JustBerry (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Inserted by JustBerry: Please post statements at Arbitration/Requests/Case and do not transclude them. Transcluded statements will be removed. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: September 2015
  Volume 8, Issue S1 • September 2015 • About the Newsletter
 * Happy 10th Anniversary!

1=

• USRD through the years

• A goal for success

• From the first spinning cogs to controlling the power of the moon 1=

• Article assessment over time

• How to measure a WikiProject's load

• Conflict over article titles 1=

• Arbitration case closes

• Collaboration

• Our valued contributors

 Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
 * —delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk) on 23:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * thank you. I am only part way through my checks. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  02:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Question.
I was hoping you could expound on why you said this Edit Warring report was "convoluted". Isn't this edit warring?

Diffs (Sep. 10 - Sep. 21):, , , , , , , , , ,

I suspect you reacted to EllenCT's admittedly convoluted reply, but the evidence above is clear cut. 11 diffs all from one editor reverting the same material over and over again during the previous week and a half. If that's not edit warring perhaps you could explain why so I don't make the mistake of reporting activity like this again. VictorD7 (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * because this wasn't straight edit warring. There are also allegations of POV pushing and ignoring consensus. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  15:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , while I can understand not wanting to rule on content here, could you please explain what "straight edit warring" is, and why the above example supposedly doesn't qualify? VictorD7 (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Look on ANEW for textbook violations of the 3RR. In this case, the reverting might be happening to enforce a consensus. If that is true then there is disruptive editing going on which is more pressing than the reverting. There also might not be a consensus at all and discussions might have been creatively interpreted. My look at this case wasn't a straightforward place where I could block, lock or topic ban. AE is the place to untangle the strands and to find out what is actually going on here. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying, . Technical 3RR violation wasn't the charge, and ANEW's description seems to reinforce the policy explanation that editors can be sanctioned for edit warring even without violating 3RR. It says exceptions are allowed if one is reverting vandalism or banned users, but neither is the case here. It even goes out of its way to say that "at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism." The list of exceptions for 3RR violations don't include content disputes either. My interpretation of policy and certainly Arbcom precedent (as explained by former members when different editors were harshly sanctioned for far less than what EllenCT is guilty of here) is that even defending consensus isn't a defense against serial edit warring. Are you saying it is? If so, does that mean that all a reported person has to do to nullify a report here and get it sent elsewhere is to assert in a reply that she's defending consensus? Or was there something specific about this case that made you think that maybe EllenCT was telling the truth? Everything she said was false, btw. She certainly didn't deny that she was unilaterally reverting all those times against several editors (which in my understanding is what the EW board should focus on). I'll add that both her and your reply came while I was away, and I returned to find that she had seized on your comment as an excuse to move the complaint to AE herself, except twisting it so that now I was somehow the defendant.  However, her report was malformed and she was unable to provide any evidence supporting her claims even after prodded to do so.  It's currently in the process of being shot down for that reason, though early indications are that the two admins to respond aren't even commenting on the edit warring evidence, somewhat buried as it is by the shroud of confusion she's raised, and say they're too confused by the badly warped report she filed to fully review the links. Fortunately several editors, some involved and others uninvolved, have taken the time to read the case and have all come to the conclusion that she has indeed been edit warring, that her accusation against me is false, and that it would be a travesty if she was allowed to game the system like this. VictorD7 (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No I am not saying that. What I am saying is that I'm not going to allow you to "win" a content dispute in an area under DS via a noticeboard. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If we're "win(ning)" the content dispute it's because I and other editors have convinced other people we're right, and because our arguments are right on the merits. The only two ways to deal with someone determined to edit war no matter what is to report them or repeatedly revert them. I figured reporting was worth a shot. If there was nothing special about this case, then in the future should all edit warring reports from articles impacted by DS go to AE instead of this board? VictorD7 (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)