Prior to his first TV series, and before he had a Wikipedia page, Tyler Henry was 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. 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===
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, herethey we have peopleare actively working off-wiki to discredit individual peopleindividuals, and then writing about their activities in the target's BLPs of the targets. That is a clear COI: as inper 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 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.
