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

Revision as of 05:44, 31 January 2022

Revision as of 10:56, 31 January 2022

Line 286:

===Campaigning against BLP subjects===

Prior to his first TV series, and before he had a Wikipedia page, Tyler Henry was targeted by Sgerbic. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP157SmBqB4 10:36] Sgerbic wrote multiple negative articles (7+), then organised for others to write additional negative articles. The initial BLP created by a non-GSoW editor about Henry was then expanded by at least seven GSoW and closely related editors to create a highly negative BLP heavily reliant on these sources. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tyler_Henry&type=revision&diff=963322756&oldid=715806181] (Self disclosed: Wyatt Tyrone Smith, Rp2006, Robincantin, VdSV9, Krelnik; per BilledMammal: Efefvoc2/CatCafe, Drobertpowell)

===Creating sources to support POVs===

Sgerbic has described how sources were created to add POVs in articles. In one case, she used a fake name to join a webinar by a BLP subject she was in a dispute with, asked questions related to the dispute, then provided a recording to a journalist. The resulting article was added by a GSoW member. In the second, she organised for a negative review to be written about a documentary. It was also added by a GSoW member.

===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, theythis are actively working off-wiki to discredit individuals, and then writing about their activities in the target's BLPs. That isinvolves a clearclose COI:connection perbetween the British politics case, "[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles#Offoff-wiki_controversies_and_biographical_material|anwiki editorand who is involved in an offon-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing articles related to that individual]]"actions.

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.

==Evidence presented by TrangaBellam==