Re: Paid Editing on WP is permissible

Post by **ericbarbour** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:31 am

I will bet you at least $100 that Sylvanniss is either a sock operated by a professional paid editor, or an employee of Kik. The account was used for only three days in August 2016, to edit a random seeming set of articles.....and then greatly expanded Ted Livingston. Turning it into another useless wiki internet-hero hagiography. And then Sylvanniss disappeared.

Yes, Kik tended to be used by teenagers. And pedophiles. That little item is not mentioned in Livingston's BLP.

It's a bit difficult to ignore...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/24/tech/kik ... index.html

Post by **ericbarbour** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 3:06 am

Damn....I seriously have to wonder if Babel41 isn't Canadian draft-resisting political figure Mark Satin, or a close friend....

https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/ ... Mark_Satin
https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/ ... l_centrism

Post by **ericbarbour** » Sun Oct 20, 2019 9:35 pm

Gosh, Batman! I forgot to mention Charles Harder!

Isn't it "interesting" that his article looks amazingly like the personal bio on his website.

Plus, examine the considerable "positive" work done on this item by a succession of "questionable accounts". Only two years old and it's already "grown and shrunk" a couple of times. It must be costly to heel Wikipedia if you're the world's meanest lawyer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wikieditor4956
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Msilverman41415
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mikepaul411
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wikicontributor90212

Carrite · Post by **Carrite** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:53 am

ericbarbour wrote:Gosh, Batman! I forgot to mention Charles Harder!

Isn't it "interesting" that his article looks amazingly like the personal bio on his website.

Plus, examine the considerable "positive" work done on this item by a succession of "questionable accounts". Only two years old and it's already "grown and shrunk" a couple of times. It must be costly to heel Wikipedia if you're the world's meanest lawyer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wikieditor4956
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Msilverman41415
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mikepaul411
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wikicontributor90212

Looks at a glance like selective cleansing to eliminate various references to his clients Harvey Weinstein and Donald Trump.

RfB

JuiceBeetle · Post by **JuiceBeetle** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 1:45 am

ericbarbour wrote:Gosh, Batman! I forgot to mention Charles Harder!

Isn't it "interesting" that his article looks amazingly like the personal bio on his website.

Plus, examine the considerable "positive" work done on this item by a succession of "questionable accounts". Only two years old and it's already "grown and shrunk" a couple of times. It must be costly to heel Wikipedia if you're the world's meanest lawyer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wikieditor4956
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Msilverman41415
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mikepaul411
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wikicontributor90212

WOW

All 4 Single-Puprose-Accounts (SPAs), almost only editing Charles_Harder.
The edit comments:
"Removed because content...", "Deleted content because..."
"Add additional information", "Add a statement...", "Added a citation", "Added dates...", Added..., Added..., Added..., "Added an image"
"Edited for clarity", "Made overarching change" (lol), "Edits were made", "Correcting existing information"

These goofy edit comments are obviously the same person.

They are not blocked yet???
The behavioral evidence is clear, even without CU.
A CU would probably reveal a few more socks, though.

Post by **ericbarbour** » Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:45 am

I wish someone would ask Jay Paul who EdwardX and Jooojay are. They both spend loads of time making nice content about prominent rich people.

In this case, they wrote nearly all the content about Paul and his real-estate company. No one said "boo".

JuiceBeetle · Post by **JuiceBeetle** » Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:04 am

ericbarbour wrote:No one said "boo".

I presume the reason for that is they have "supportive" admin friends. For a nice share of the payments, it should be easy to find a few jobless admins who appreciate some "donations".
When I have some time I'll look into their interactions to find those connections.

Post by **ericbarbour** » Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:11 am

Go for it. Here's another one: reeks of pay-editing, largest contributor was the notorious BrillLyle. Have YOU ever heard of this guy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Blasberg

Post by **ericbarbour** » Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:12 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Franheartsu

Could NOT be more obviously a working-for-pay WP editor. The primary author of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Korey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Rubio

and a contributor to the article about Korey and Rubio's company (originally created by TonyTheTiger, which might indicate that HE is performing paid edits):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Away_(luggage)

Mentioned because Away has been the focus of a recent employee-abuse shitshow (read it, it's dark but hilarious)
https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/5/2099 ... -inclusion
https://www.inc.com/christine-lagorio-c ... eport.html

Do a websearch for photos of Korey and Rubio. You cannot escape the smell of raging egomania.

Post by **ericbarbour** » Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:29 am

It's a bit rare to see a COI-editing story on Slate.....

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... ditor.html

While both the edit logs and the original Peter Buttigieg page itself are hidden from the average Wikipedia user (as is the case with all deleted pages), a Wikipedia admin who requested anonymity to avoid blowback shared that deleted content with Slate.

Hmmm.

The best part is the abuse she's taking in the comments. This is why people can get away with COI editing--WIKIPEDIA IS MAGIC. And no one, not even an award-winning journalist, is allowed to say otherwise.

Perhaps I should email her. Eh?

Wikipedia Sucks!

Wikipedia Sucks!