This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Upwork job timings match the article creation times by single-purpose accounts. I am posting the links, because it is allowed by an exception set out in the policy.
While I don't see any obvious problems with some of those articles, and inclusionists would probably argue for keeping them all, that's not the point. There is no way to know how biased the articles are, which parts are exaggerated or if any key information is omitted, without researching the sources. I don't see why editors should work on verifying those possibly borderline cases instead of focusing on more worthwhile subjects. But I know that having the articles deleted would be a pain, so I'm leaving it here.
Rentier ( talk) 17:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Glasyguyuk looks like it belongs to the group of accounts identified by the SPI investigation. Compare the edits and edit summaries of Glasyguyuk and UKranama2, or the nicknames Londukguy and Glasyguyuk. Rentier ( talk) 22:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Another Wikipedia article writing/monitoring service was posted at Jimbo's talkpage. That's actually a blog post by an author who says they work for WikiOfficer, a company that pretty much advertises the use of socks: "Since we hold a good number of authoritative accounts with the Wikipedia, our edits hardly get reversed". Articles and accounts unknown at this time. ☆ Bri ( talk) 01:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Bri: Is an open admission of sockpuppetry enough to open a case at SPI, even in the absence of evidence? Surely a Checkuser would flush out any socks to see if this claim is legitimate. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 16:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The user has been making some edits to the Shimon Bejarano page, asserting that his name is such, and not the previous title of Bejarno. I moved this, since a Google search seems to agree. I made it clear on the user's talk page that directly editing the COI page in question is not recommended, but continued to edit afterwards. It is difficult to do any more when the user has not replied to my comments, and continues to edit. Thanks, My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 15:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Graciekwillie and Artisteditorial are only here to promote Echelman and her works. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I reviewed the draft article at AfC and was concerned at its promotional nature which led me to search for the editor's full name in Google. Their LinkedIn profile is among the top search results and indicates that they work as an assistant at the company, with responsibility for "design, social media, PR and communications". Accordingly I left a COI notice on their talk page. I therefore was surprised when the editor wrote on my talk page today that they are " not conflicted with the company, but rather found out about them through a research project for my thesis. Since I couldn't find a Wikipedia article about them for basic information I wanted to create one." It seems they at least have a perceived conflict of interest. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 13:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Joanna Pickering was created by User:MMGNYC, who was blocked for being "an account for the publicity company MMG in NYC". Since then, editing of that article has been taken over by User:Jordon RB and the IPs listed. Aside from stuffing the Joanna Pickering article absurdly full of puffery, they have also been involved with the article Gustaf Heden. In 2015, a person claiming to be Gustaf Heden proposed the article for deletion, saying "I am Gustaf Heden and this was a page created by my ex (whose name is made pretty obvious by a quick read of the article) and I would like it deleted, as its erronoeous and no more than a supposed tool for her self-promotion". I strongly suspect all accounts are related to the publicity company. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 20:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I am a COI editor and declared such. I requested a change to my company page which was declined. The message reads, "The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first." I'm hoping that this posting will facilitate that or that someone can give me advice with how to proceed.
I just searched "wikipedia" on Upwork and found 280 jobs, most of which request articles or edits. I then searched "upwork" on the archive pages of this talk page and there're no mentions, so I'm not sure how many of you are aware of this issue. Some of the job proposals include the title of the article to be created/edited, so I think it's worth keeping an eye on that list, and even writing Upwork to request they at least warn users creating jobs related to Wikipedia. What do you think? -- Felipe ( talk) 16:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
From something Bri posted elsewhere, it looks like Fiverr's ToS are contradictory to our ToU. "Seller" = the freelance paid editor
"Privacy & Identity - You may not publish or post other people's private and confidential information. Any exchange of personal information required for the completion of a service must be provided in the order page. Sellers further confirm that whatever information they receive from the buyer, which is not public domain, shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever other than for the delivery of the work to the buyer."
In short - the paid editor may not put their client's name in their paid editor declaration. But we require the paid editor to declare their client. The ToU FAQs are clear in such a case. ("If you wish to avoid the disclosure requirement of this provision, you should abstain from receiving compensation for your edits.") The paid editor is not allowed to edit here. Could we ask Fiverr to require the disclosure of this info for Wiki jobs, or alternatively to ban postings there for Wiki-jobs? @ Doc James and DGG:
I've looked for a similar provision in Upwork's ToS but don't see it. However, it does have a section on copyright that contradicts our rules:
Upwork copyright https://www.upwork.com/legal/ "OWNERSHIP OF WORK PRODUCT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Upon Freelancer’s receipt of full payment from Client, the Work Product, including without limitation all Intellectual Property Rights in the Work Product, will be the sole and exclusive property of Client, and Client will be deemed to be the author thereof. If Freelancer has any Intellectual Property Rights to the Work Product that are not owned by Client upon Freelancer’s receipt of payment from Client, Freelancer hereby automatically irrevocably assigns to Client all right, title and interest worldwide in and to such Intellectual Property Rights. Except as set forth above, Freelancer retains no rights to use, and will not challenge the validity of Client’s ownership in, such Intellectual Property Rights. Freelancer hereby waives any moral rights, rights of paternity, integrity, disclosure and withdrawal or inalienable rights under applicable law in and to the Work Product. If payment is made only for partial delivery of Work Product, the assignment described herein applies only to the portion of Work Product delivered.”
In short the copyright is the "the sole and exclusive property of Client"
We, of course require the poster (the paid editor) to own the copyright and give us a CC-BY license. As above, the only way not to violate either the ToU or the ToS is to do nothing - no paid editing allowed. Smallbones( smalltalk) 21:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Our problem isn't a lack of tools, but a lack of an ability to identify paid editors.It's not too difficult to identify paid or other kind of COI editors when patrolling the new pages. New user + perfect formatting + borderline notable BLP / ORG is a good indicator. Add puffery or bogus references and it's a clear-cut case. Example: Lisa Barnett. Unfortunately, at the moment, BOGOF is the community's method of choice for dealing with these articles. I noticed that DGG has been pushing to establish promotionalism combined with borderline notability as a valid reason for deletion. It seems to me to be a powerful and robust way to tackle the problem. Rentier ( talk) 07:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Here's a thought: Suppose we were to directly contact the people posting those requests for work on Upwork with a boilerplate notice basically saying, "We're from Wikipedia, we see what you're doing there, and you can't do it that way. If you want an article on your company/product/band, create a Wikipedia account, and make a request (disclosing your COI) on the appropriate noticeboard". bd2412 T 17:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I've created a watchlist at User:Bri/COIbox55 (the "related changes" feature is nice for this). It picked up Babes (band) created by an editor who has also done bands and entertainers like Kate Berlant, Hibou (band), Mathieu Santos, Day Wave ... maybe we need a new case for this. ☆ Bri ( talk) 05:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
See this ANI thread, oddly started by the editor. As has been pointed out there, their edits look very much like a paid editors, and they have said that they edit under multiple accounts since 2005 ( diff). I have looked through the three articles for sock networks but have not identified anything clear. Wanted to post here in case anybody else is interested to look or this rings a bell for anybody. Jytdog ( talk) 04:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Should Top 10 medical innovations (Cleveland Clinic) exist? Evidence of notability is very thin. The main independent source is from CNN, but it's one of those "special to CNN" things and it was written by someone who describes herself as a "SEO Specialist and Digital Content Analyst", not a mainstream reporter. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 15:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
it should not be redirected because is different topic and very important article about Medical Sciences.. Oy. Jytdog ( talk) 06:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The user has removed references, added unreferenced content, and done lots of interesting stuff to the article. @ Toddst1: suspects COI, and I think it's quite apparent for myself, adding 'quality' to this sentence. My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 13:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Long term likely paid for
New users. Possibly the same?
All working on the topic area
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
One of the above accounts has been linked to these socks [6]
Which raises concerns about this not yet blocked account
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Looks like this may be created soon by this family of socks
By the way I have described a way that appears to be used to side step copyright review of images here [7] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Articles
Accounts
Highbrows Engineering and Technologies is a Pakistani company that offers wikipedia biographies for $349 and company pages for $449. The full offer is available at http://archive.is/oPy8v. The company's founder appears to be a veteran Wikipedia editor (20,000+ edits), although as far as I can tell, he has never used his main account for work, and didn't make any edits this year (that account is not listed here).
They state on their website "Our Wikipedia veterans create or correct it in a way that it conforms to all Wikipedia policies and sticks on the wiki, even gets updated for free by the Wikipedia volunteers later on.", which should be dedicated to those who oppose deletion of articles created by undisclosed paid editors.
Now, the evidence:
The four articles are part of a group of 20 articles listed above, which share the following similarities:
and several other characteristics that I won't describe, so as to not make it too easy to avoid detection in the future. Not all SPAs are necessarily from the Highbrows agency, though it's likely that most are, and all look suspicious.
Rentier ( talk) 21:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The name "Haider" was used by a UPE in the past. I'll have to look it up. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
(completely lacking of a NPOV - See editions and editwars she is currently engaged with it) (completely lacking of a NPOV - See editions and editwars she is currently engaged with it)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Susana Hodge uncovered a sockfarm, now the usual cleanup... a sampling of articles listed above. Bri ( talk) 22:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
As is often the case with paid editors, the refs frequently do not support all the content they are attached to. One basically needs to go through and verify everything :-( Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
It is interesting that they declined this AFC.I would imagine they than asked the creator to hire them... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
In a not completely unexpected development, the SPI team has stated ""Susana Hodge" is revealed to be a person outside the United States who actually advertises Wikipedia paid editing services on LinkedIn." ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed that a probable (very probable) undeclared paid editor created Malta Financial Services Authority. It's not the first time I've suspected that they are here creating articles on legitimate governmental financial regulators. See Archive 107 for earlier finds involving sockmaster Euclidthalis and his socks active at Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission and UAE's Securities and Commodities Authority.
I'm not sure what that's about but suspect that there's a growing nexus of UPE around forex and binary trading who want to legitimize themselves somehow. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Contrary to what his user page states this guy does work with Microsoft, is not as developer, prolifically spams links to MSDN blogs published by O' Rielly Media, Microsoft's marketing arm, and generally promotes misinformation. He also receives directly or indirectly personal gain from providing these links. Though he will categorically deny it if asked. However I can supply plenty of supporting evidence. The relationship is not transient. His business partner is a moderator on Technet also. The 3GB Barrier link above are just one example.
The one other constant is articles involving memory limitations for Windows and Intel IA-32 processors are deliberately made so ambiguous no consumer would understand them, which seems to be the goal. On Stack Exchange, Jeh uses the misleading Wikipedia articles he edits as source material. Which in turn lead to MSDN and O 'Rielly and Microsoft. It's an infinite circular reference. Probably not him alone.
Further, Jeh has just been caught trolling under a different username. All this has been going on so long possibly it's one account with several people. How does someone like myself take this further without giving his name and more evidence publicly?
Also, I checked his user page yesterday and the vandalism alert thing was at 4, an hour later it was down to 3. What's up with that?
On a side note, Wikipedia is impossible to navigate for users not familiar with the templates and layout. It took me half an hour just to find this page. 01:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)01:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.228.76 ( talk • contribs)
I should clarify that it's not just alleged sockpuppetry on other sites that doesn't generally concern us. Any other alleged misbehaviour on other sites is also likewise not generally something that concerns us. That means, for example, if someone uses wikipedia to support their statement in some other site but fails to disclose they edited the article in question on the other site and you feel the other sites rules require them to do so, it's not something we will deal with here. You need to take it up with the other site. (An exception would be if the editor is editing articles solely to win arguments without regards for whether they are actually improving the article, because on that case there's misbehaviour here.)
Also, without commenting on the merits of using O'Reilly Media books and MSDN, it's not circular referencing to use them unless they are taking the information from wikipedia, or some other place that took it from wikipedia. I would imagine O'Reilly Media books and MSDN and predominantly primary sources and use person experience and analysis including of the software code in some instances rather then just taking the information from wikipedia anyway. Note even if Jeh wrote the MSDN article or O'Reilly Media book, this still would most likely not be circular referencing, regardless of whether it was appropriate.
P.S. I said the sockpuppetry thing because your statement on trolling is unclear. Are you claiming that Jeh is using multiple accounts here on wikipedia? If so you claim they were caught but I'm not seeing any signs of this. If you're able to provide the evidence available on wikipedia of this you should do so, as the normal signs like Jeh's block log and WP:SPI are empty, unusual for someone who was 'caught'. If you meant they were caught doing this elsewhere, well that's why I brought up the irrelevance bit. If you're claiming they were doing this here, but they were caught elsewhere, well unless you're able to make the case for it using only diffs from en.wikipedia you need to present it to arbcom.
I don't have time right now to read through all the text above, however I never said O' Rielly was part of Microsoft. Don't mince words. O'Rielly publish Windows Internals and the Techmet blogs. "Jeh"'s company runs Windows Internals Developer Seminars. O "Rielly pay affiliates a commission for sales of that book. This involves Salesforce and Amazon also. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Thew whole thing is one big marketing campaign. I also will not discuss any information which I may have in public. Least of with the persons involved. I will disclose this in private though like I said. And yes my IP probably does look familiar. An associate of mine once attempted to address the situation with Jeh. He went about it the wrong way.. That person is no longer in the country, he moved to the USA. 122.59.228.76 ( talk) 21:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Due to commitments in real life I won't be able to respond to all queries at once. All I really want to know is how to contact administrators, only other option is to "out" Jeh" which isn't going to benefit anyone. I'm not that guy. Will be checking back here periodically to read replies. 122.59.228.76 ( talk) 21:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
A Google search for this person's full name indicates that they are "Head of SEO" at an agency. I believe they are an undeclared paid editor with a conflict of interest on multiple articles that they've created or contributed to. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 15:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Have blocked the account in question until disclosure occurs. This article likely also needs looking at Daniel Green (English businessman) Contain a fair degree of outing. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The only edits by this editor have been to create Stone Point Capital, which has since been speedy-deleted. The editor was asked whether they have a conflict of interest and did not answer. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
We had some problems with this article before, after which I did a lot of cleanup and didn't return to the article. An editor who expanded it ~2x in December has just disclosed a COI. The expansion needs a look-see and maybe more ToS declarations are in order. ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
A google search reveals that the subject is the editor's client. Essabowser agreed to make a disclosure two weeks ago, but hasn't done so yet. In any case, the article could use some attention. Rentier ( talk) 15:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
NikoPat1 has been expanding businessman Paolo Zampolli's article since the beginning of the year with mostly unsourced positive content. They also uploaded a number of copyright violating images most of which have been deleted. They claim to have taken File:Paolo_Zampolli_portrait_standing_by_UN_flag.jpg themselves in Zampolli's office. That would suggest that they are either associated with Zampolli or in their employ. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 16:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The user denied having a conflict of interest after being asked by another editor. But granting permissions to a book cover of a non-notable book via an OTRS ticket, the outing of Candice Hutchings's date of birth (surely this needs to be removed and oversighted?) combined with the fact that when I nominated Candice Hutchings for deletion, the paid editor Essabowser, who had until that moment been nearly exclusively devoted to tending a single article (see my earlier post), suddenly became interested in the AfD process, makes me think otherwise. Rentier ( talk) 16:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If you take a look at this person's contributions, you will see that they have added books by 'Brian James Crabb' on various warship articles. Has been warned about COI. My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 09:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
A few weeks ago I came across an unusual Upwork job (it was several years old) that asked for substantial additions to the article Sang Sinxay. I believe that the end goal was funnelling users to the sales page http://www.sinxay.com/ I just found Frank Fox (author), which does something similar. Both websites use the same hosting provider, but that's the only connection I can see. Rentier ( talk) 16:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Auggyp has made several edits to the Petersen article, including here, and here. as well as a number of older edits going back quite some time. The last two were removing information concerning Petersen's religion that was decided by consensus on the talk page should be in the article. He's also likely in violation of the WP:1RR that applies to political articles, and Bunco man might be too, but considering he was re-adding material that consensus determined should be there, I'm inclined to call WP:IAR for Bunco and let it slide. Auggyp, not so much. As for the COI issue, Petersen himself uses the nickname on Youtube so it is likely the Auggyp account is Petersen himself, or at least someone closely connected to him. Smartyllama ( talk) 19:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
As an edit request patroller, I am seeking additional input on a block of requests related to Jewish texts. User:LevEliezer is affiliated with the website Sefaria, which posts freely licensed complete texts of Jewish manuscripts. They have requested on several articles that editors add an external link to the texts on their website, and their edit requests on Haggadah, Midrash, and Sefer ha-Ikkarim have been open since April 2017.
Because LevEliezer's other edit requests have received conflicting evaluations, I am hoping that discussion here can form a consensus on the remaining ones. A user at WikiProject Judaism expressed support for the requests in general, I granted the edit request on Talk:Mekhilta_of_Rabbi_Ishmael, and their edit request on Talk:Talmud/Archive 1 was similarly accepted. On the other hand, their edit requests on Talk:Sifre and Talk:New Jewish Publication Society of America Tanakh were turned down. I am minded to grant the remaining requests, as links to copyright-compliant full text versions of books are in line with WP:ELYES, but would like to hear what other editors think first. Thanks, Altamel ( talk) 00:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
This has been a process of me learning the ropes. I had originally made the edits directly, and MrOllie reverted them, citing the COI policy, and not the quality of the links. I figured out the right way to make requests, given my COI, but the original reverts have stayed there as a stain. Since then, I've had a few conversations with editors e.g. Sir_Joseph and with WikiProject Judaism. I haven't yet heard a strong argument against, but of course, I have a COI.
Regrading the texts themselves, I've been proposing links to texts where Sefaria has full versions, sourced from reputable editions. In Hebrew, those are generally public domain to begin with. In English, we often facilitate the release of texts into the commons and/or clarify the legal status of uncertain texts. I'm not generally proposing links to texts where all we have is an incomplete community edition. LevEliezer ( talk) 08:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Possibly also:
Recurring deletion of the "Controversies" section.
The IP ( User:84.1.149.4) whois resolves to the company in question. I suspect that the two users are also operated by the company (they have only made the same edit to the company page), but I don't have any evidence for that. Lonaowna ( talk) 12:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Looks like the article subject writing his own article. John Nagle ( talk) 05:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
After I nominated the above article for deletion, I was a recipient of a curious message on my talk page, stating that article was created by X (who self-identifies as an "experienced Wikipedia writer") and that the poster was trying to get in touch with them. I've asked to have the PII / LinkedIn link removed from my Talk page, but the gist of the message is here: [18]. A couple of minutes googling has lead me to a Talk page of an editor who has been banned from Wikipedia for undisclosed paid editing in 2015. I see that they have created about 75 articles prior to their ban, mostly BLPs of entrepreneurs, speakers and authors, all vaguely promotional and most still live. Related questions:
I would appreciate some guidance, as I've not been a regular at this board. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
See this SPI for more details Note: the named master was determined to be unrelated by CU evidence, but this is large enough I thought it worth posting here to get more eyes on it quickly. Groups 1-3 are possibly related. Group four is unique.
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
I am listing the articles created by each group. Group 1 also did editing extensive editing of subjects that already had an article.
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Group one will need additional work going through articles that they added substantial content to, but I didn't have the time to add those to this list now. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Have confirmed that
Articles
Not a sock themselves but appears to be collaborating with but worked on articles for pay after the above socks.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 15:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
One or several individuals are persistently adding unreferenced or poorly-sourced positive information to Wikipedia pages on Go Vilnius and Darius Udrys. Censoring or removal of non-positive information is also present.
Amount of publicly unavailable details and tone of voice in previous edits by these IP addresses clearly reveal affiliation and conflict of interest:
TL;DR summary: It appears that Go Vilnius and Darius Udrys are consistently edited by employees of Go Vilnius or Darius Udrys himself. 31.192.111.189 ( talk) 13:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I imagine the last three are carrying out the warranty provided by the first.
Articles:
User actually make a bit of a disclosure here Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
SPI started here
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stoubora
Articles affected:
SmartSE ( talk) 12:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
This mostly of the spamming varity. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xingzuin
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
There are a few articles that they created as well as the spam links: SmartSE ( talk) 20:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
User's only activity is creating four rather promotional articles, and on three very different subjects (Alicia Yoon is the founder of Peach & Lily, so that counts as one). Difficult to believe that someone would do this without having a COI, and is very likely a paid editor. And they received a COI talkpage notice in March. Edwardx ( talk) 19:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Undisclosed paid editing sock farm with a variety of article subjects.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 23:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I think Music4382 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is related as well. In addition to the username similarity to two confirmed socks (Musicinmymind, Musiclovetoall), this account created Jaimie Hilfiger which has also been edited by the Wikibaji account and confirmed sock Musicinmymind . Deli nk ( talk) 12:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Check out https://tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser/ that was made by User:Rentier. It allows the NPP stream to be searched for suspicious phrases and to focus on throwaway accounts. It's already been used by Rentier to identify the sockfarms posted above and has led me to another. SmartSE ( talk) 22:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Upwork job timings match the article creation times by single-purpose accounts. I am posting the links, because it is allowed by an exception set out in the policy.
While I don't see any obvious problems with some of those articles, and inclusionists would probably argue for keeping them all, that's not the point. There is no way to know how biased the articles are, which parts are exaggerated or if any key information is omitted, without researching the sources. I don't see why editors should work on verifying those possibly borderline cases instead of focusing on more worthwhile subjects. But I know that having the articles deleted would be a pain, so I'm leaving it here.
Rentier ( talk) 17:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Glasyguyuk looks like it belongs to the group of accounts identified by the SPI investigation. Compare the edits and edit summaries of Glasyguyuk and UKranama2, or the nicknames Londukguy and Glasyguyuk. Rentier ( talk) 22:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Another Wikipedia article writing/monitoring service was posted at Jimbo's talkpage. That's actually a blog post by an author who says they work for WikiOfficer, a company that pretty much advertises the use of socks: "Since we hold a good number of authoritative accounts with the Wikipedia, our edits hardly get reversed". Articles and accounts unknown at this time. ☆ Bri ( talk) 01:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Bri: Is an open admission of sockpuppetry enough to open a case at SPI, even in the absence of evidence? Surely a Checkuser would flush out any socks to see if this claim is legitimate. -- Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 16:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The user has been making some edits to the Shimon Bejarano page, asserting that his name is such, and not the previous title of Bejarno. I moved this, since a Google search seems to agree. I made it clear on the user's talk page that directly editing the COI page in question is not recommended, but continued to edit afterwards. It is difficult to do any more when the user has not replied to my comments, and continues to edit. Thanks, My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 15:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Graciekwillie and Artisteditorial are only here to promote Echelman and her works. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I reviewed the draft article at AfC and was concerned at its promotional nature which led me to search for the editor's full name in Google. Their LinkedIn profile is among the top search results and indicates that they work as an assistant at the company, with responsibility for "design, social media, PR and communications". Accordingly I left a COI notice on their talk page. I therefore was surprised when the editor wrote on my talk page today that they are " not conflicted with the company, but rather found out about them through a research project for my thesis. Since I couldn't find a Wikipedia article about them for basic information I wanted to create one." It seems they at least have a perceived conflict of interest. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 13:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Joanna Pickering was created by User:MMGNYC, who was blocked for being "an account for the publicity company MMG in NYC". Since then, editing of that article has been taken over by User:Jordon RB and the IPs listed. Aside from stuffing the Joanna Pickering article absurdly full of puffery, they have also been involved with the article Gustaf Heden. In 2015, a person claiming to be Gustaf Heden proposed the article for deletion, saying "I am Gustaf Heden and this was a page created by my ex (whose name is made pretty obvious by a quick read of the article) and I would like it deleted, as its erronoeous and no more than a supposed tool for her self-promotion". I strongly suspect all accounts are related to the publicity company. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 20:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I am a COI editor and declared such. I requested a change to my company page which was declined. The message reads, "The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first." I'm hoping that this posting will facilitate that or that someone can give me advice with how to proceed.
I just searched "wikipedia" on Upwork and found 280 jobs, most of which request articles or edits. I then searched "upwork" on the archive pages of this talk page and there're no mentions, so I'm not sure how many of you are aware of this issue. Some of the job proposals include the title of the article to be created/edited, so I think it's worth keeping an eye on that list, and even writing Upwork to request they at least warn users creating jobs related to Wikipedia. What do you think? -- Felipe ( talk) 16:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
From something Bri posted elsewhere, it looks like Fiverr's ToS are contradictory to our ToU. "Seller" = the freelance paid editor
"Privacy & Identity - You may not publish or post other people's private and confidential information. Any exchange of personal information required for the completion of a service must be provided in the order page. Sellers further confirm that whatever information they receive from the buyer, which is not public domain, shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever other than for the delivery of the work to the buyer."
In short - the paid editor may not put their client's name in their paid editor declaration. But we require the paid editor to declare their client. The ToU FAQs are clear in such a case. ("If you wish to avoid the disclosure requirement of this provision, you should abstain from receiving compensation for your edits.") The paid editor is not allowed to edit here. Could we ask Fiverr to require the disclosure of this info for Wiki jobs, or alternatively to ban postings there for Wiki-jobs? @ Doc James and DGG:
I've looked for a similar provision in Upwork's ToS but don't see it. However, it does have a section on copyright that contradicts our rules:
Upwork copyright https://www.upwork.com/legal/ "OWNERSHIP OF WORK PRODUCT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Upon Freelancer’s receipt of full payment from Client, the Work Product, including without limitation all Intellectual Property Rights in the Work Product, will be the sole and exclusive property of Client, and Client will be deemed to be the author thereof. If Freelancer has any Intellectual Property Rights to the Work Product that are not owned by Client upon Freelancer’s receipt of payment from Client, Freelancer hereby automatically irrevocably assigns to Client all right, title and interest worldwide in and to such Intellectual Property Rights. Except as set forth above, Freelancer retains no rights to use, and will not challenge the validity of Client’s ownership in, such Intellectual Property Rights. Freelancer hereby waives any moral rights, rights of paternity, integrity, disclosure and withdrawal or inalienable rights under applicable law in and to the Work Product. If payment is made only for partial delivery of Work Product, the assignment described herein applies only to the portion of Work Product delivered.”
In short the copyright is the "the sole and exclusive property of Client"
We, of course require the poster (the paid editor) to own the copyright and give us a CC-BY license. As above, the only way not to violate either the ToU or the ToS is to do nothing - no paid editing allowed. Smallbones( smalltalk) 21:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Our problem isn't a lack of tools, but a lack of an ability to identify paid editors.It's not too difficult to identify paid or other kind of COI editors when patrolling the new pages. New user + perfect formatting + borderline notable BLP / ORG is a good indicator. Add puffery or bogus references and it's a clear-cut case. Example: Lisa Barnett. Unfortunately, at the moment, BOGOF is the community's method of choice for dealing with these articles. I noticed that DGG has been pushing to establish promotionalism combined with borderline notability as a valid reason for deletion. It seems to me to be a powerful and robust way to tackle the problem. Rentier ( talk) 07:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Here's a thought: Suppose we were to directly contact the people posting those requests for work on Upwork with a boilerplate notice basically saying, "We're from Wikipedia, we see what you're doing there, and you can't do it that way. If you want an article on your company/product/band, create a Wikipedia account, and make a request (disclosing your COI) on the appropriate noticeboard". bd2412 T 17:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I've created a watchlist at User:Bri/COIbox55 (the "related changes" feature is nice for this). It picked up Babes (band) created by an editor who has also done bands and entertainers like Kate Berlant, Hibou (band), Mathieu Santos, Day Wave ... maybe we need a new case for this. ☆ Bri ( talk) 05:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
See this ANI thread, oddly started by the editor. As has been pointed out there, their edits look very much like a paid editors, and they have said that they edit under multiple accounts since 2005 ( diff). I have looked through the three articles for sock networks but have not identified anything clear. Wanted to post here in case anybody else is interested to look or this rings a bell for anybody. Jytdog ( talk) 04:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Should Top 10 medical innovations (Cleveland Clinic) exist? Evidence of notability is very thin. The main independent source is from CNN, but it's one of those "special to CNN" things and it was written by someone who describes herself as a "SEO Specialist and Digital Content Analyst", not a mainstream reporter. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 15:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
it should not be redirected because is different topic and very important article about Medical Sciences.. Oy. Jytdog ( talk) 06:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The user has removed references, added unreferenced content, and done lots of interesting stuff to the article. @ Toddst1: suspects COI, and I think it's quite apparent for myself, adding 'quality' to this sentence. My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 13:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Long term likely paid for
New users. Possibly the same?
All working on the topic area
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
One of the above accounts has been linked to these socks [6]
Which raises concerns about this not yet blocked account
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Looks like this may be created soon by this family of socks
By the way I have described a way that appears to be used to side step copyright review of images here [7] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Articles
Accounts
Highbrows Engineering and Technologies is a Pakistani company that offers wikipedia biographies for $349 and company pages for $449. The full offer is available at http://archive.is/oPy8v. The company's founder appears to be a veteran Wikipedia editor (20,000+ edits), although as far as I can tell, he has never used his main account for work, and didn't make any edits this year (that account is not listed here).
They state on their website "Our Wikipedia veterans create or correct it in a way that it conforms to all Wikipedia policies and sticks on the wiki, even gets updated for free by the Wikipedia volunteers later on.", which should be dedicated to those who oppose deletion of articles created by undisclosed paid editors.
Now, the evidence:
The four articles are part of a group of 20 articles listed above, which share the following similarities:
and several other characteristics that I won't describe, so as to not make it too easy to avoid detection in the future. Not all SPAs are necessarily from the Highbrows agency, though it's likely that most are, and all look suspicious.
Rentier ( talk) 21:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The name "Haider" was used by a UPE in the past. I'll have to look it up. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
(completely lacking of a NPOV - See editions and editwars she is currently engaged with it) (completely lacking of a NPOV - See editions and editwars she is currently engaged with it)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Susana Hodge uncovered a sockfarm, now the usual cleanup... a sampling of articles listed above. Bri ( talk) 22:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
As is often the case with paid editors, the refs frequently do not support all the content they are attached to. One basically needs to go through and verify everything :-( Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
It is interesting that they declined this AFC.I would imagine they than asked the creator to hire them... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
In a not completely unexpected development, the SPI team has stated ""Susana Hodge" is revealed to be a person outside the United States who actually advertises Wikipedia paid editing services on LinkedIn." ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed that a probable (very probable) undeclared paid editor created Malta Financial Services Authority. It's not the first time I've suspected that they are here creating articles on legitimate governmental financial regulators. See Archive 107 for earlier finds involving sockmaster Euclidthalis and his socks active at Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission and UAE's Securities and Commodities Authority.
I'm not sure what that's about but suspect that there's a growing nexus of UPE around forex and binary trading who want to legitimize themselves somehow. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Contrary to what his user page states this guy does work with Microsoft, is not as developer, prolifically spams links to MSDN blogs published by O' Rielly Media, Microsoft's marketing arm, and generally promotes misinformation. He also receives directly or indirectly personal gain from providing these links. Though he will categorically deny it if asked. However I can supply plenty of supporting evidence. The relationship is not transient. His business partner is a moderator on Technet also. The 3GB Barrier link above are just one example.
The one other constant is articles involving memory limitations for Windows and Intel IA-32 processors are deliberately made so ambiguous no consumer would understand them, which seems to be the goal. On Stack Exchange, Jeh uses the misleading Wikipedia articles he edits as source material. Which in turn lead to MSDN and O 'Rielly and Microsoft. It's an infinite circular reference. Probably not him alone.
Further, Jeh has just been caught trolling under a different username. All this has been going on so long possibly it's one account with several people. How does someone like myself take this further without giving his name and more evidence publicly?
Also, I checked his user page yesterday and the vandalism alert thing was at 4, an hour later it was down to 3. What's up with that?
On a side note, Wikipedia is impossible to navigate for users not familiar with the templates and layout. It took me half an hour just to find this page. 01:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)01:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.228.76 ( talk • contribs)
I should clarify that it's not just alleged sockpuppetry on other sites that doesn't generally concern us. Any other alleged misbehaviour on other sites is also likewise not generally something that concerns us. That means, for example, if someone uses wikipedia to support their statement in some other site but fails to disclose they edited the article in question on the other site and you feel the other sites rules require them to do so, it's not something we will deal with here. You need to take it up with the other site. (An exception would be if the editor is editing articles solely to win arguments without regards for whether they are actually improving the article, because on that case there's misbehaviour here.)
Also, without commenting on the merits of using O'Reilly Media books and MSDN, it's not circular referencing to use them unless they are taking the information from wikipedia, or some other place that took it from wikipedia. I would imagine O'Reilly Media books and MSDN and predominantly primary sources and use person experience and analysis including of the software code in some instances rather then just taking the information from wikipedia anyway. Note even if Jeh wrote the MSDN article or O'Reilly Media book, this still would most likely not be circular referencing, regardless of whether it was appropriate.
P.S. I said the sockpuppetry thing because your statement on trolling is unclear. Are you claiming that Jeh is using multiple accounts here on wikipedia? If so you claim they were caught but I'm not seeing any signs of this. If you're able to provide the evidence available on wikipedia of this you should do so, as the normal signs like Jeh's block log and WP:SPI are empty, unusual for someone who was 'caught'. If you meant they were caught doing this elsewhere, well that's why I brought up the irrelevance bit. If you're claiming they were doing this here, but they were caught elsewhere, well unless you're able to make the case for it using only diffs from en.wikipedia you need to present it to arbcom.
I don't have time right now to read through all the text above, however I never said O' Rielly was part of Microsoft. Don't mince words. O'Rielly publish Windows Internals and the Techmet blogs. "Jeh"'s company runs Windows Internals Developer Seminars. O "Rielly pay affiliates a commission for sales of that book. This involves Salesforce and Amazon also. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Thew whole thing is one big marketing campaign. I also will not discuss any information which I may have in public. Least of with the persons involved. I will disclose this in private though like I said. And yes my IP probably does look familiar. An associate of mine once attempted to address the situation with Jeh. He went about it the wrong way.. That person is no longer in the country, he moved to the USA. 122.59.228.76 ( talk) 21:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Due to commitments in real life I won't be able to respond to all queries at once. All I really want to know is how to contact administrators, only other option is to "out" Jeh" which isn't going to benefit anyone. I'm not that guy. Will be checking back here periodically to read replies. 122.59.228.76 ( talk) 21:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
A Google search for this person's full name indicates that they are "Head of SEO" at an agency. I believe they are an undeclared paid editor with a conflict of interest on multiple articles that they've created or contributed to. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 15:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Have blocked the account in question until disclosure occurs. This article likely also needs looking at Daniel Green (English businessman) Contain a fair degree of outing. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The only edits by this editor have been to create Stone Point Capital, which has since been speedy-deleted. The editor was asked whether they have a conflict of interest and did not answer. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
We had some problems with this article before, after which I did a lot of cleanup and didn't return to the article. An editor who expanded it ~2x in December has just disclosed a COI. The expansion needs a look-see and maybe more ToS declarations are in order. ☆ Bri ( talk) 15:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
A google search reveals that the subject is the editor's client. Essabowser agreed to make a disclosure two weeks ago, but hasn't done so yet. In any case, the article could use some attention. Rentier ( talk) 15:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
NikoPat1 has been expanding businessman Paolo Zampolli's article since the beginning of the year with mostly unsourced positive content. They also uploaded a number of copyright violating images most of which have been deleted. They claim to have taken File:Paolo_Zampolli_portrait_standing_by_UN_flag.jpg themselves in Zampolli's office. That would suggest that they are either associated with Zampolli or in their employ. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 16:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The user denied having a conflict of interest after being asked by another editor. But granting permissions to a book cover of a non-notable book via an OTRS ticket, the outing of Candice Hutchings's date of birth (surely this needs to be removed and oversighted?) combined with the fact that when I nominated Candice Hutchings for deletion, the paid editor Essabowser, who had until that moment been nearly exclusively devoted to tending a single article (see my earlier post), suddenly became interested in the AfD process, makes me think otherwise. Rentier ( talk) 16:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If you take a look at this person's contributions, you will see that they have added books by 'Brian James Crabb' on various warship articles. Has been warned about COI. My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 09:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
A few weeks ago I came across an unusual Upwork job (it was several years old) that asked for substantial additions to the article Sang Sinxay. I believe that the end goal was funnelling users to the sales page http://www.sinxay.com/ I just found Frank Fox (author), which does something similar. Both websites use the same hosting provider, but that's the only connection I can see. Rentier ( talk) 16:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Auggyp has made several edits to the Petersen article, including here, and here. as well as a number of older edits going back quite some time. The last two were removing information concerning Petersen's religion that was decided by consensus on the talk page should be in the article. He's also likely in violation of the WP:1RR that applies to political articles, and Bunco man might be too, but considering he was re-adding material that consensus determined should be there, I'm inclined to call WP:IAR for Bunco and let it slide. Auggyp, not so much. As for the COI issue, Petersen himself uses the nickname on Youtube so it is likely the Auggyp account is Petersen himself, or at least someone closely connected to him. Smartyllama ( talk) 19:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
As an edit request patroller, I am seeking additional input on a block of requests related to Jewish texts. User:LevEliezer is affiliated with the website Sefaria, which posts freely licensed complete texts of Jewish manuscripts. They have requested on several articles that editors add an external link to the texts on their website, and their edit requests on Haggadah, Midrash, and Sefer ha-Ikkarim have been open since April 2017.
Because LevEliezer's other edit requests have received conflicting evaluations, I am hoping that discussion here can form a consensus on the remaining ones. A user at WikiProject Judaism expressed support for the requests in general, I granted the edit request on Talk:Mekhilta_of_Rabbi_Ishmael, and their edit request on Talk:Talmud/Archive 1 was similarly accepted. On the other hand, their edit requests on Talk:Sifre and Talk:New Jewish Publication Society of America Tanakh were turned down. I am minded to grant the remaining requests, as links to copyright-compliant full text versions of books are in line with WP:ELYES, but would like to hear what other editors think first. Thanks, Altamel ( talk) 00:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
This has been a process of me learning the ropes. I had originally made the edits directly, and MrOllie reverted them, citing the COI policy, and not the quality of the links. I figured out the right way to make requests, given my COI, but the original reverts have stayed there as a stain. Since then, I've had a few conversations with editors e.g. Sir_Joseph and with WikiProject Judaism. I haven't yet heard a strong argument against, but of course, I have a COI.
Regrading the texts themselves, I've been proposing links to texts where Sefaria has full versions, sourced from reputable editions. In Hebrew, those are generally public domain to begin with. In English, we often facilitate the release of texts into the commons and/or clarify the legal status of uncertain texts. I'm not generally proposing links to texts where all we have is an incomplete community edition. LevEliezer ( talk) 08:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Possibly also:
Recurring deletion of the "Controversies" section.
The IP ( User:84.1.149.4) whois resolves to the company in question. I suspect that the two users are also operated by the company (they have only made the same edit to the company page), but I don't have any evidence for that. Lonaowna ( talk) 12:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Looks like the article subject writing his own article. John Nagle ( talk) 05:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
After I nominated the above article for deletion, I was a recipient of a curious message on my talk page, stating that article was created by X (who self-identifies as an "experienced Wikipedia writer") and that the poster was trying to get in touch with them. I've asked to have the PII / LinkedIn link removed from my Talk page, but the gist of the message is here: [18]. A couple of minutes googling has lead me to a Talk page of an editor who has been banned from Wikipedia for undisclosed paid editing in 2015. I see that they have created about 75 articles prior to their ban, mostly BLPs of entrepreneurs, speakers and authors, all vaguely promotional and most still live. Related questions:
I would appreciate some guidance, as I've not been a regular at this board. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
See this SPI for more details Note: the named master was determined to be unrelated by CU evidence, but this is large enough I thought it worth posting here to get more eyes on it quickly. Groups 1-3 are possibly related. Group four is unique.
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
I am listing the articles created by each group. Group 1 also did editing extensive editing of subjects that already had an article.
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Group one will need additional work going through articles that they added substantial content to, but I didn't have the time to add those to this list now. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Have confirmed that
Articles
Not a sock themselves but appears to be collaborating with but worked on articles for pay after the above socks.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 15:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
One or several individuals are persistently adding unreferenced or poorly-sourced positive information to Wikipedia pages on Go Vilnius and Darius Udrys. Censoring or removal of non-positive information is also present.
Amount of publicly unavailable details and tone of voice in previous edits by these IP addresses clearly reveal affiliation and conflict of interest:
TL;DR summary: It appears that Go Vilnius and Darius Udrys are consistently edited by employees of Go Vilnius or Darius Udrys himself. 31.192.111.189 ( talk) 13:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I imagine the last three are carrying out the warranty provided by the first.
Articles:
User actually make a bit of a disclosure here Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
SPI started here
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stoubora
Articles affected:
SmartSE ( talk) 12:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
This mostly of the spamming varity. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xingzuin
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 15:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
There are a few articles that they created as well as the spam links: SmartSE ( talk) 20:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
User's only activity is creating four rather promotional articles, and on three very different subjects (Alicia Yoon is the founder of Peach & Lily, so that counts as one). Difficult to believe that someone would do this without having a COI, and is very likely a paid editor. And they received a COI talkpage notice in March. Edwardx ( talk) 19:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Undisclosed paid editing sock farm with a variety of article subjects.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 23:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I think Music4382 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is related as well. In addition to the username similarity to two confirmed socks (Musicinmymind, Musiclovetoall), this account created Jaimie Hilfiger which has also been edited by the Wikibaji account and confirmed sock Musicinmymind . Deli nk ( talk) 12:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Check out https://tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser/ that was made by User:Rentier. It allows the NPP stream to be searched for suspicious phrases and to focus on throwaway accounts. It's already been used by Rentier to identify the sockfarms posted above and has led me to another. SmartSE ( talk) 22:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)