I've created a summary list of various ideas to combat UPE that have been proposed, mooted, rejected and so-on.

It's currently at an add-on/idea stage, more details on which can be seen at the page. Please feel free to add your own, tweak the summaries or leave an initial comment on the idea (any that are universally panned will be filtered out before taking forward to RfC).

Many of the proposals are deliberately not fully formed, to avoid submitting an unwieldly large amount of policy thoughts all at once. Proposals passed by the community that need further details (such as a "mystery-shopper" counter-UPE method) would be expanded by those interested and resubmitted on its own.

Please invite anyone you think might be interested. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering what everyone thinks of making COI disclosure on one's user page mandatory? Based on my experience at WP:COIN, the problem with having three different methods of disclosure is that when a serial COI editor is found, without a user page disclosure it can take hours to track down all their COI contributions. At the moment, the latitude given for disclosures makes ample space for hiding disclosure. An editor might, for example, just put "I Have COI", or "I know them" or "this is about a friend" in the edit summary, thus satisfying the disclosure requirements. Or they might tag the talk page as connected contributor. All of these are hard to find when, for example, someone on a mission to document their family history is found. Having the user page list of COI articles as standard would clarify the process a lot, and perhaps make it more viisible when someone is on a bit of a COI binge.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, I think your idea is an excellent one. Let me suggest some enhancements to your idea, which I think make it even better: We could make two new rules.

The first new rule:

• If you have a COI but are unpaid, you must include a {{UserboxSomeEditsCOI}} or {{UserboxAllEditsCOI}} template somewhere on your user page.
• If you have a COI and are paid, you must include a {{UserboxSomeEditsPaid}} or {{UserboxAllEditsPaid}} template somewhere on your user page.

And the second new rule:

• If some, but not all, of your edits are COI edits: You must provide us with a list of affected articles somewhere on your user page. You can do so either inside or outside the userbox template.

Once the new rules become final, perhaps:

• We could make a small tweak to the navigation-popups gadget. When you hover over an affected user's username, the hover popup could show the text "COI" or "Paid" next to the user's edit count.
• And, if all of a user's edits are COI or paid, we could tweak the MediaWiki software to automatically add "(COI)" or "(paid)" to their signature.

Regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be helpful. I work at a university library editing Wikipedia. Are all my edits COI? Are my edits on historical figures with ties to the university COI? What about edits on individuals whose only tie is that their papers are in our archive? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rachel Helps (BYU):

Which of your edits are COI? Dunno. It's a gray area.

We could exempt all GLAM editors from having to provide a list of COI articles (and maybe we could also exempt all Wikipedians-in-residence). You could simply add {{UserboxSomeEditsCOI}} to your userpage and then return to your usual routine.

We're not actually worried about GLAM editors here. Instead, we're worried about other COI editors, such as Greghenderson2006.

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm okay in favour of the userpage bit (there's probably a few editors with a broad set who would need a "I have COIs, please click this link for a subpage listing all of them"). I'd be okay with the paid hover popup addition but it seems to discourage the COI declarations if it's always going to be associated with their popups, for eternity. Now if you could find a way to limit it so that it only appear on popups if you happened to be on that page/its talk page that would be phenomenal and really beneficial. But otherwise I think the negatives outweigh the positives. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nosebagbear: Fair point. On second thought: Let's show the popup message only if all their edits are COI or paid. If only some of their edits are COI or paid, let's not show any popup message at all. —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all!

The guideline is somewhat long. Various user warning templates link to it, but I think it may be difficult for brand-new Wikipedians to understand. I think it makes sense for us to offer a short unofficial summary, in order so that new Wikipedians can more easily know what to do. I think that adding a summary might improve compliance with the guideline.

Per WP:PGBOLD, I added a summary to the top of the guideline. (Diff.) Soon after, ThatMontrealIP reverted me. Despite the fact that WP:PGBOLD asks him to give a substantive reason for reverting me, he didn't really do so.

Dear ThatMontrealIP: I assume you probably disagree with my reasoning above. If so: why?

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nice idea but I agree with MontrealIP that it is a bit strange to put the unofficial version before the official one. This page isn't designed purely with new editors in mind and neither should it be. Also, we already have Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide hatlinked - should we maybe make this more prominent and link to it from the {{nutshell}}? SmartSE (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the idea that the guideline is confusing to new editors. However in terms of this edit, I reverted it because first, as it says in the header, Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. Second, we already have what you were trying to do, in the form of the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. What your edit did was basically add a set of unofficial points followed by the established guideline, which makes the page more confusing: First, the unofficial summary... The above unofficial summary is not part of the official guideline below. The edit deleted the lede that summarized the guideline, and replaced it with your own disclaimer-framed short guide to COI. I'll leave it for other editors to comment. (Also, small note but the bold on strongly discouraged isn't needed: and WP:MOS suggests we don't use bold for emphasis in that way.) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unforgettableid's edits appear to make the assumption that COI editors are too stupid to understand the guideline. Also, if a user is reading the "guideline", placing an "unofficial summary" at the top of the guideline will likely confuse readers, not help them. "Here is the official guideline, but first, the unofficial guideline". It just looks kinda sloppy. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677: What if we keep the summary on a different page, but we put an obvious link (not just a hard-to-notice hatnote) somewhere within the lead section? I could add the link. —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Unforgettableid: We already have the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide; what you are proposing duplicates that page. I'd support making the link to the plain and simple guide clearer, as SmartSe suggests above. What would you think of that?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ThatMontrealIP: This would be a good idea. Let's not link to it from the {{nutshell}} template; let's link to it from the main text of the lead section. Ideally, please don't do this yourself; please let me do it, a bit later on. Regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Let's get consensus on that first.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link to the plain and simple guide in the hatnote at the top of the guideline? How much easier could it be? More important... why? Imagine the COI editor. They are either completely naive, and enter obvious COI stuff about themselves or their garage band. Then along comes another editor who tags their talk page. Same deal with a less-naive COI editor. Their talk page gets tagged, and they have been warned. Why make so much effort to simplify the COI guideline? Anyone who ends up there has been caught, and the naive newby will make the effort to find out what they did wrong, although it's usually unbelievably easy to figure it out just from the warning on their talk page. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Magnolia677: A) How much easier could it be? Well, there could be a bold link in its very own paragraph in the prose part of the lead section. B) Why? Well, naive COI editors may get a talk page message which sends them to WP:COI. They'll know they did something wrong. But there are quite a few of rules for COI editors, and they have to read a lot of the guideline to learn them all. Some new editors may not bother, and may give up. If we include a prominent link from WP:COI to WP:BPCOI or WP:PSCOI, they can learn a good summary of the rules in much less time. This may reduce the chances that they'll give up on their reading and know none of the rules. ❧ In short: The guideline is like an official user manual, sprinkled with legalese jargon, that many people won't bother reading. A summary "quick-start guide" would be better for most newbies. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ThatMontrealIP: A) It's true that one of the header templates does say that substantive edits should reflect consensus. B) It's also true that WP:PSCOI already exists. C) I didn't delete the lead section; I moved it downwards into a new "Introduction" section. D) MOS:BADEMPHASIS indeed says not to use bold for emphasis, as it's too distracting. Matthew Butterick, on the other hand, points out that, when using a sans-serif font, italics don't stand out enough. In practice, WP:COI does use bold for emphasis. Also, I don't think the MOS is mandatory for guidelines, or in fact for any part of project space. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We already have a lead and a {{nutshell}} that summarises this policy. Then there's also WP:PSCOI and numerous message templates that explain it in various levels of detail for new editors. Adding yet another resume makes it less clear, not more. – Joe (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago, this guideline was changed to replace the word "should" with "must", and now advises WP:PAID editors: "you must put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly". The purpose of the RfC is to determine whether this change has consensus, or if the previous guidance should be restored. –xeno^talk 12:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• They should not be allowed to create articles at all, especially directly in mainspace (unless they are Wikipedians in Residence or similar roles where the interests of the encyclopedia and the funders are aligned). Only volunteers should make inclusion decisions for this volunteer curated project. When paid editors start making inclusion decisions, Wikipedia ceases to be an encyclopedia and turns into an advertising medium that is nothing more than an extension of the subject's websites and social media profiles. MER-C 12:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• But that's what AfC is. A process where volunteers make inclusion decisions before an article goes live, particularly when dealing with Paid or COI editors who require an additional layer of scrutiny. If this is what you want, it's unclear to me why you would not support the proposal and would rather ban them from creating articles in the draftspace, under volunteer scrutiny. Banning paid editors from creating articles in good faith does not eliminate paid editing, it just leaves paid editors the singular option to create articles without us ever knowing their status. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 13:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It certainly seems to go in the opposite direction of what the paid editing disclosure requirements are meant to accomplish by pushing potential paid editors back into 'undisclosed' territory, causing more work administratively. –xeno^talk 13:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• They should not be able/allowed to make articles in mainspace, all should go through AfC. There are those that do make good articles, but those are rather few, and for them AfC should not be a hurdle at all. If only we could go as far that they should actually also must not add anything to mainspace with the articles that they have a conflict of interest with, but use a {{edit request}} on the talkpage then we would get somewhere suitable. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think such a change would need to come in the context of graduating this from a guideline to a policy (with the number of "musts" already present in the guideline, that should probably be raised anyway). –xeno^talk 13:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively, that wording could go into WP:PAID, in which case WP:COI follows the policy. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's probably easier, yes. –xeno^talk 14:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The paid-contribution disclosure (WP:PAID) page started as a place on English Wikipedia to document the paid-contribution disclosure requirement in the terms of use, including the option for the project to adopt an alternate disclosure policy. It then got a lot of stuff added from other guidelines, which has made the section describing the alternate policy somewhat confusing, as it doesn't apply to the other stuff. I strongly suggest not hanging more guidance on the paid-contribution disclosure page. I think it is better placed on this page or an explicit guidance for paid editors page. isaacl (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I think ALL editors should be forced to use AFC at this point. New and old, volunteer and paid. Wikipedia is almost 20 years old, if a topic is isn't considered notable by now it probably isn't. So validate all notability on creation instead of retroactively at AFD. Also AFC should be better at funnelling non notable topics to suitable alternate wikis so free content isn't lost. 2A01:4C8:51:4FCD:80BE:1419:F86B:1661 (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a little extreme. I don't think expirenced non-COI editors need to go via the AFC process. Not only would that cause a huge strain on the AFC process, but that might discourage editors from creating articles since they would have to wait 6 months before their article could be created. That being said, I think we should keep the AFC requirement for creating articles with a COI. Without this, there may be widespread PR articles on Wikipedia. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's silly. There are thousands of experienced editors who know how to create perfectly acceptable new articles. That's a bridge too far. --Jayron32 15:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Normally, I'm reticent to use obligatory language with anything at Wikipedia (I live IAR in real life and at Wikipedia...) but I also think that this is one of the rare cases where a bright line rule is useful. Forcing paid editors to go through a review process is ideal and will allow us to both pass on good articles to the main space (since some paid editors are perfectly capable of writing a proper article and will find the process to be only a minor inconvenience) and will also allow us to slow or stop the crap advertising that some people try to pass off who have no experience with writing in our house style. This seems like a good idea. --Jayron32 15:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No, of course not. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This exact topic was discussed recently elsewhere. I don't have a link to that one but my impression is that based on that discussion, the change made here does not have consensus. (I participated in that discussion also, so if someone could find and link it...) --Izno (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Izno is it Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 158#Paid editing? –xeno^talk 15:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That appears to be another, but no, I am pretty sure it is not that one I was thinking. Good find there though. --Izno (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• While we can sort out a few details of where this exact language should go, I'm generally supportive of having a strict rule to make paid editors go through AfC. As Dirk Beetstra notes, this won't adversely impact the paid editors who are good contributors and know how to play by the rules, and provides firmer ground for dealing with editors who are engaging in bad faith. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this a serious proposal that anyone thinks is going to work or is this just to make us feel righteous? Are we really going to expect PR firms to say to their clients, "Yes, Mr. Bigwig, we've created the biography article you paid us $200/hr for. What's that? Why can't you see it yet? Well, we're waiting for the very stringent review of Randy from Boise. No, I'm sorry. even though it would be trivially easy for us to go around waiting on Randy it would be wrong of us to do that." Really? Does that sound reasonable to anyone? This is feel-good instruction creep and bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Note: I don't actually think the folks at AfC are Randys. They do great and important and generally thankless work. I simply don't think that paid article or PR firms nor their clients will know or care about the difference. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Eggishorn, There are also problems with the AfC process. I've seen notable topics rejected, drafts rejected for silly reasons, and editors unfamiliar with certain topics weighing in inappropriately, among other issues. Not to mention, some drafts take months or even years to be reviewed... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer:, thank you for pointing that out. Your last point (the backlog) has unfortunately become endemic and permanent at AfC and that reason alone is, I feel, enough to ensure that this proposal would be a miserable failure in practice. This proposal would, in fact, incentivize the very behavior is is supposed to stop. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Eggishorn, I share the frustrations. I think we all know at some level that what's needed to combat paid editing is better techniques for catching UPEs or shaming companies, not more rules. People focus on rules because legal action is in the hands of WMF and other sorts of action require getting creative. But I'd really prefer to see us focus on things like setting up sting operations like the one French Wikipedia used to remarkable effect or coordinating off-wiki shaming campaigns (image if The North Face had faced a serious boycott effort, not just scattered disgruntled tweets). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Feels like it will shoot us in the foot in the long run. Responsible paid editors will follow the rule and wait forever to have drafts reviewed. Bad faith paid editors will not. This incentivizes paid editors to not disclose their COI because it will be more expedient to keep it concealed. Verifying UPE is hard, and so incentivizing non-disclosure seems to be stacking the odds against us. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Wugapodes, Well said. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm late to the party, but is this only applicable to editors who have submitted a Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and not to suspected paid editors who have not disclosed their status as such? wbm1058 (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• A distinction should probably be drawn between entry-level paid editors and experienced paid editors. Maybe make a professional editor put their first five or ten articles through the review but once those have passed, exempt them if they've demonstrated competence? I can envision the possibility of some paid editors having more experience and competence than our newer volunteer reviewers. Spot checks could be made on the exempted pros to make sure they aren't abusing their privileges. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the surface this seems like a common sense idea, but the problem it actively contributes to UPE. Will a company chose a disclosed editor complying with the rule who says that their article will take 2 months of review and more if it is declined, or an UPE who says they can get it up immediately? We shouldn't be putting in barriers that only disclosed paid editors have to face, in order to actually get compliance with any of our policies at all, if not absolutely necessary to NPOV. Zoozaz1 (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosed paid editors should go to the head of the line. We should give them a priority queue to ensure their submissions are promptly reviewed. Knowing that professional edits are more promptly reviewed than amateur edits should incentivize disclosure. Hopefully the volunteer reviewers aren't outnumbered; if they are then we'll need a way to incentivize reviewers too. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058:, that's an awful idea - it treats paid editors better than volunteer, newcomer, editors (or non-paid COI editors). It also would logically encourage false paid-coi claims. I would specifically refuse to work on any paid editor priority queue were this to be introduced and I suspect a good number of reviewers would join me. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. This would further encourage nondisclosure. Benjamin (talk) 06:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, absolutely, as both the idealistic and pragmatic solution. Idealistically, we should always be reviewing any writing which we use that is not independent (another example would be incorporation of freely licensed text). Pragmatically, this is a quicker banhammer to those who are trying to subvert our fundamental principles. Almost all paid editors will not know or care about us changing "should" to "must". Any AfC or NPP editor I've seen is already leaving a paid editor with the impression that AfC is mandatory. The point is that having this as a hard rule makes it easier to take action against what previously may not technically have been sanctionable. (Of course, anyone who breaks the rules in good faith does not have to be sanctioned.) — Bilorv (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Must, unless experience criterion met - I suspect there are very few disclosed paid editors who wouldn't have disclosed if they'd had to do AfC - we functionally force people down that queue anyway. Whereas I'm staunchly against any attempt to ban paid editor creations entirely (which absolutely would bump the UPE rate). If we want to say "after 10 articles have been accepted through AfC, a paid editor may submit directly" I'd be in favour of that. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Paid editors must use AFC for new articles. I tried to find how many editors actually use the paid editing template on their user page. Seems to be around 4,000. Obviously, most paid editors are not disclosing. The argument that requiring AFC will drive them underground is not relevant here, as the majority of paid editors are already underground, from what I have seen at COIN. As mentioned above, French Wikipedia found a couple hundred of them recently. Requiring AFC is not gong to solve the problem, but it gives us some tools to work with the undisclosed paid editors that get discovered. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Must. Relatively few paid editors seem to understand COI policy. Their articles tend to be riddled with issues, from notability to spam. Require AfC. Wugapodes' point is fair, however, and I've made the same point myself before on one of those PAID policy talks. Such articles would probably just get draftified. It would be easier to enforce this if the guideline on draftifying, accompanying this requirement, focused on general promo spamminess (not rising to G11) rather than requiring 'proof' of COI. In effect, the point of such a PAID AfC rule is intended to prevent the former, and only the former can be determined anyway. If that is not done, then this would be impossible to enforce, and hence just contribute to causing more UPE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Must I was the one who changed the word, using BRD, , because I thought that my change represented the clear policy of what we were requiring them to do, and that saying anything short of that was giving them advice or instruction that would lead to their work being rejected. It was not I who started insisting they do it--I followed the lead of the other editors who consistently did, and tried merely to match the wording of our statement with our actual guideline, which is the way the policy is in practice applied. .

I don't want to downgrade honest PR or honest advertising.; I respect both professions as having a place in the world if done properly. I am aware -- and even wikifriends--with several of paid editors, and I find that none of them can be fully trusted to do acceptable work on paid articles. A few of them do very acceptable work when they work on articles that interest them as volunteers, and have no need whatever of using AfC when writing in that capacity; in principle they have the knowledge and experience that it seems would enable them to do similarly good work on paid articles also--but they almost never do. I have done paid writing outside Wikipedia, though never after I joined. The purpose of my writing generally was to write a fair evaluation of a product, and I did so, and I think I was totally honest, and I was not usually paid even indirectly by the firm whose work i was evaluating, and I was paid even when I produced a negative evaluation. Nonetheless, I knew very well that if i did not generally produce results that could be interpreted positively, I would not often be hired, because my job was to tell people about what to buy, not what to avoid buying. People can do honest paid advertising: there is indeed honest advertising. But the purpose remains advertising, and the skill is how to do the work in such a way that people will think it a fair advertisement. The paid editors I know in Wikipedia tell me that in general they have difficulty finding enough business, and are forced to turn down most requests because they know they cannot produce an honest job: one of them has left for another profession--others do this as a minor part of paid PR. I know people who write bios of professors hired by universities--they are always positive. Now, it is true that someone who was not an excellent academic would not get an article on WP, but the emphasis is different. A proper academic biography here presents a description of. the person's work, and is not devoted to explaining how good they are; a proper PR writeup for a university is devoted to explaining how good someone is, and how the university was fortunate enough to be able to hire them. It is not all that difficult to convert on for to another, and Ive done it if the person is excellent enough and interesting enough to me to be worth the trouble. But I would not trust myself to do it properly for money. Money is important, and writing for money is a potentially honest activity, but it has no place on Wikipedia . Any work done for this reason needs to be carefully evaluated--and almost always rewritten--by experienced editors here who are fully aware of the origins of the item.

The place where this is done is AfC. Before we had AfC, it was very tedious to pick out those articles that needed this scrutiny, and any look at out earlier articles will show how many got missed. We still miss them--reviewers are sometimes careless or inadequate, but much less often. Most paid work submitted to AfC is never accepted, even when it would in theory be possible to have an article. We need this as a first line of defense. (And I would as a minimum modify the immediately prior statement of exception, to when 10 consecutive articles over a period of a year have all been accepted without significant changes by the review or subsequently---and that very rarely happens. the exception would be so rare and so difficult to administer that we'd be better off without it.)

Problems in review have been pointed out, and they're real enough, for I spend considerable time looking for. just such problems and trying to instruct the reviews. But the reviews are now not any random editor, but are subject to selection, and inadequate ones get taught to do it properly or removed. Where we need to put our effort is in better, faster, and more consistent reviews, and in providing real help, not just a form acceptance or rejection. We need more of our best people reviewing, and more of us checking other people's reviews. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]