Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Evidence presented by Bilby: trimmed to improve word count |
m →Responses: ce |
||
Line 288:
===Responses===
I agree with Shibbolethink that a COI should not be a concern in regard to a skeptic simply writing about topics of interest to skeptics. However, here we have people actively working off-wiki to discredit individual people, and then writing about their activities in the BLPs of the targets. That is a clear COI: as in the British politics case, "[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles#Off-wiki_controversies_and_biographical_material|an editor who is involved in an off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing articles related to that individual due to a potential conflict of interest]]", although in this case the COI goes
In regard to Johnuniq, a) this is a long term problem, so diffs displaying how this has been an issue for an extended time make sense; b) in regard to stings, the problem is not writing about them, but writing about them when there is a blatant COI; and 3) due to the nature of Wikipedia any problem can be fixed, but this does not mean that we should allow the problems to occur.
| |||