Wikipedia

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

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Sgerbic and Rp2006 violating policies/guidelines related to BLP editing: let's see if this wording works...fair point the former was snarky
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]]. One element of this that shocked me at the time, 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
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism_and_coordinated_editing/Evidence"