|
===A negative COI is still a COI===
Under [[WP:COI]], a COI can be formed by "any external relationship". In the British politics case,Previously ArbCom found that COI "[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles#Conflicts_of_interest|the conflict of interest guideline also applies to conflicts that could cause unduly negative editing]]".
===GSoW is involved in off-wiki activism===
The main focus here are the GSoW "sting" operations targeting mediums to discredit them, as described in: [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/magazine/psychics-skeptics-facebook.html] [https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/operation-onion-ring-thomas-john-and-the-children/] [https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/click-click-click-thomas-john/] [https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/suzane-northup-operation-lemon-meringue/] [https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/operation-pizza-roll-thomas-john/] According to Sgerbic, they focus on psychics that "have enough notability to have a Wikipedia page". [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN6Ol1KZNes&t=24s 2:30]
===GSoW editors have been editing BLPs where they have specific COIs due to their off-wiki activism===
In particular, GSoW members have extensively edited the BLPs of subjects who they targeted through their stings in order to include the result of their off-wiki activism, often sourced to publications by GSoW members and supporters.
* Thomas John: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_John_%28medium%29&type=revision&diff=887554479&oldid=884098925] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_John_(medium)&diff=900801101&oldid=898089323] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_John_%28medium%29&type=revision&diff=987944187&oldid=979425852] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_John_%28medium%29&type=revision&diff=1035190826&oldid=1029107677]
===Campaigning against BLP subjects===
The major case here is Tyler Henry. Prior to his first reality TV series, and before he had a Wikipedia page, he was specifically targeted by Sgerbic as he had no prior criticism. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP157SmBqB4 10:36] Sgerbic wrote multiple negative articles (7+) about Henry, then organised for others to write additional negative articles to increase the amount of criticism. The initial BLP created by a non-GSoW editor about Henry was then edited and 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)
===Responses===
===Response to Shibbolethink===
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, in this situationhere we have people actively working off-wiki to discredit individual people, and then writing about their activities on-wiki 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 a bit further.
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==
| 