Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:56, 19 January 2022

Revision as of 22:53, 19 January 2022

Line 127:

==Evidence presented by Vaticidalprophet==

===Sgerbic and Rp2006 violating policies/guidelines related to BLP editing===

Sgerbic and Rp2006 have made edits to and about BLPs that demonstrate an inability to understand [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]],. andOne quiteelement ironicallyof forthis soi-disantthat skeptics,shocked behaviourme suchat asthe bytime, was proclaiming a source's content without reading it or a source's reliability without looking into its background; the degree to which this doesn't accord with the virtues of skepticism and scientific inquiry is one reason I have serious qualms about GSoW BLP editing.

*[[Special:Diff/1013867251]]: Sgerbic calls a source a "press release" advertising its subject; [https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/craig-hamilton-parker_uk_5a096e3be4b01d21c83f9a32 the actual source] is highly critical

**Also this diff: Sgerbic refers to ''[[The Guardian]]'' and ''[[The Australian]]'', both national newspapers of record, as unreliable sources