User talk:Swift Researcher

June 2023
Hello, I'm TornadoLGS. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Numerai have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving this page attention. I un-did your revision as you assumption that my edits were made with a promotional intent is unfounded. As I understand it Wikipedia is an opensource collaboration and not the place to make assumptions about the intentions of contributors. I have not and am not using Wikipedia as a platform advertising or a personal soapbox. Swift Researcher (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:. David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Wow, If you look at my edits, they are all factual and contribute to the improvement of that article's utility as a encyclopedia. Swift Researcher (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

(talk) 17:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * David,
 * I'm sorry for saying that. Would you please unblock me? I would like to become a part of this community not be immediately blocked by it. Numerai is a very interesting topic. They do have the stated goal of "monopolizing all money," after all. And they are about to hit 1 billion in AUM this year. They certainly warrant a closer look than in my view. It's out of date. Can't we work together? I could use a mentor...
 * very kindly,
 * Dylan Bodkin
 * San Francisco, California Swift Researcher (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

For reference, someone with the same name as this user is claiming to be posted a job listing on LinkedIn for a "Wikipedia Researcher", which has resulted in a user claiming to be hired by them, who is currently over at ANI (permalink) for going against guidelines for paid edits and for using ChatGPT as a source. The LinkedIn account possibly linked to Swift Researcher has them listed as an "Ai Strategist", and a "Competitor" at Numerai, a company they made repeated COI edits about (as you can see above). 2600:1700:87D3:3460:3183:BC1D:FFEB:CE57 (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * When reviewing this block, be sure to check out the hostile page comments subsequently deleted prior to requesting unblocking.-- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup. Given that the LinkedIn job listing has its posting date as "2 weeks ago" (presumably rounded), I wonder whether they posted it right after getting blocked. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:3183:BC1D:FFEB:CE57 (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Further noting that three other users have been editing the Numerai page in a suspect manner. User:Sukhaniseema1993, whose page lists them as being paid "by UpWork on behalf of Dylan". User:Tahirhayatqau, who started editing Numerai hours after Swift Researcher was blocked. And User talk:204.102.74.5, whose IP is linked to the same school that Dylan's LinkedIn lists him as being an alumnus of. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:3183:BC1D:FFEB:CE57 (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Every single article you edit on behalf of a client who pays you, you must disclose. That is non-negotiable per the editing disclosure policy. This applies to you and all of your associates.

The proper way for a paid editor to act is to make an edit request instead of editing an article directly. This allows uninvolved editors the chance to review your changes to ensure they meet the required standards for notability, reliable sourcing and neutral point of view. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Ah thank you. Per the editing disclosure policy Ms. Sukhanin, Ms. Custidio, and Mr. Hayat were all instructed to disclose their affiliation to me. To my knowledge Ms. Sukhanin and Ms. Custidio both fully disclosed their affiliation in compliance to the Wikipedia paid-contribution disclosure policy. As of this morning I see that the Mr. Hayat did not do this. He has subsequently be terminated and no longer represents me in any capacity. Ms. Sukhanin's disclosure is still visible on her user page. Ms. Custidio's user page has been altered by an admin and the disclosure is no longer there. Apparently, she may have created a second account. Once I figure out what that is about I will decide if she needs to fired as well, or if she can be kept on the project. (I am also very concerned about her use of ChatGPT as a source.) Apologies for not catching that myself. And again thank you for directing my attention to the Request Wizard page. That does appear to be a best practice. If at all possible may I have permission to submit an edit request on the Numerai talk page, so that I can disclose my interest in the format you alluded to?
 * - Dylan Swift Researcher (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you expand on what this "project" is? Why does it require (at least) three paid editors? Why is it focused on the Numerai page? Given that you have a COI as a competitor in their competition, what edits are you trying to get made? To what end? Why, in your words, "[start] a war with Wikipedia" instead of just propose edits on the talk page? 2600:1700:87D3:3460:B062:F226:7C83:38C6 (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Can you expand on what this "project" is?"
 * Yes I can. The project is to do research on the San Francisco based hedge fund Numerai. A topic that is notable for various reasons, but the main reason it's in the public interest is that founder publicly states that Numerai's goal is to "monopolize money." Personally I think that's a bit troubling and warrants close scrutiny. As a user of their platform I feel it's in my own interest to do adversarial research on Numerai. As a citizen of the world I feel I have a responsibility to open source my research.
 * "Why does it require (at least) three paid editors?"
 * It doesn't require three people. I had figured 3 heads would be better than one. In my mind it requires paid contributor to resolve the very conflict of interest you mention. If their independent and allowed to practice their craft and be judged on the content of their edits than the conflict of interest is resolved.
 * "Given that you have a COI as a competitor in their competition, what edits are you trying to get made?"
 * I sincerely want to contribute quality research to the Numerai Wikipedia page so that the general public can benefit. I just want contribute an article that is better than the one that existed when I got starter. I'd like to start with a shot precis and the a history section. why don't I just show you our outline...
 * Numerai
 * Numerai is a hedge fund based in San Francisco, California, founded by South African Richard Craib [1 ]. Craib, a Cornell trained mathematician [1 ], is responsible for the firm's unique approach: hosting a data-science competition, in which thousands of anonymous data scientists compete to make the best stock market predictions, using machine learning models trained on obfuscated financial market data. [7 ]. Competitor’s are rewarded with a digital currency known as Numeraire in proportion to the quality of their predictions. [4 ]
 * History
 * Numerai was established in November 2015[1 ]. The inception of the company was driven by Craib's idea to leverage both artificial intelligence and collective intelligence to make investment decisions[2 ]. In December of the same year the firm began hosting a continuous competition, inviting data scientists to use machine learning models to predict stock market trends[1 ].
 * In 2016, Numerai secured $1.5 million in funding[1 ]. By the end of 2016, Numerai had successfully raised an additional $6 million in investments[3 ]. The funding round included participation from Union Square Ventures and other previous partnershttps://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/business/dealbook/numerai-investment-hedge-fund.html.
 * In 2017, Numerai became the first hedge fund to introduce its own cryptocurrency, Numeraire (NMR), as a means to incentivize the data scientists participating in its tournaments[5 ]. The use of Numeraire was intended to encourage collaboration among the participants and align their interests with the overall success of the fund[8 ]. Also in 2017, Numerai announced an unconventional addition to its employees health plan: cryogenic freezing at Alcor[6 ].
 * References
 * 1 Wigglesworth, Robin. “Artificial intelligence-focused Numerai raises $1.5m.” Financial Times Apr 18, 2016.
 * 2 Grillo, Mike. Capturing the Intelligence of the Crowd: How to Create Your Own Super AI" Futurism, Oct 05, 2016.
 * 3 Popper, Nathaniel. "Hedge Fund Driven by Anonymous Ideas Gets New Investments." The New York Times, Dec 12, 2016.
 * 4 Metz, Cade. "An AI Hedge Fund Created a New Currency to Make Wall Street Work Like Open Source." Wired, Feb 21, 2017.
 * 5 Shin, Laura. "This Is The World's First Cryptocurrency Issued By A Hedge Fund." Forbes, Feb 21, 2017.
 * 6 Faife, Corin. "This AI Company Offers Cryogenic Freezing With Its Health Plan" Vice, May 09, 2017.
 * 7 Dailey, Natasha. "A NASA engineer paid for his wedding and honeymoon by betting cryptocurrency on his ability to pick stocks for a quant trading firm." Markets Insider, Oct 4, 2021.
 * 8 Carmichael, Taylor. "Why You Might Want to Make a Small Investment in Numerai's Crypto." The Motley Fool, Mar 29, 2022. Swift Researcher (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I'll just note that He has subsequently be terminated and no longer represents me in any capacity. and I will decide if she needs to fired as well, or if she can be kept on the project. rub me very much the wrong way. For whatever reason, you decided to embark upon this "project", and paid random people on UpWork (who clearly had little to no experience with Wikipedia) $100 each to carry out this work for you. If they failed to follow guidelines, that is entirely your fault for not briefing them properly. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:B062:F226:7C83:38C6 (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * yes, I can. The project the is about contributing quality research to wikipedia... a platform wich I have been a fan of my entire life. Numerai is a notable subject. It's current page contains several factual inaccuracies as well as promotional language. As a competitor in their data science tournament I consider my an expert on the subject and experts are allowed to make contributions to fields they are associated with. I hired 3rd party researchers because that should resolve any conflict of interest issues. Paid contributions are allowed. I hired 3 people because 3 heads are better than one. In an ideal world they would be allowing make edits and contributions to the Numerai page and those contributions be judged only on their quality. But in this world suspicion and paranoia seem to reign paramount. I believe research is true science and I believe Wikipedia is the appropriate platform to discover truth.
 * And please do not diminish us like that. I did not hire "random people." I hired professional researchers. Yes they're not yet exposed to the nuances of wikipedia specifically. But why aren't we giving them a chance? Maybe me and my team can make a quality contribution to Wikipedia. Despite what ive been accused of I actually do want contribution quality research thats written in a natural point of view. Swift Researcher (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "It's current page contains several factual inaccuracies as well as promotional language"
 * Really? Because all your editors did was introduce more factual inaccuracies as well as quote promotional language directly from the Numerai site.
 * "I hired 3rd party researchers because that should resolve any conflict of interest issues."
 * If you'd read up on Wikipedia policies in the slightest, you'll know that paid editors inherently (and obviously) have a conflict of interest too, and that "those with a conflict of interest, including paid editors, are very strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles, but should post content proposals on the talk pages of existing articles." Which none of your three editors did. One of them, in fact, didn't even disclose being paid!
 * "I did not hire 'random people.' I hired professional researchers. Yes they're not yet exposed to the nuances of wikipedia specifically. But why aren't we giving them a chance?"
 * Good question. If these are professional researchers, surely 90% of their edits won't involve quoting text directly from the Numerai site and making nonsense edits in order to get paid... right?
 * Ms. Sukhanin stated he never asked me publish unbiased content. When I did raise some concerns about the ambiguous information about Numerai practices, he promptly asked me to publish that as well. She did virtually nothing but edit Numerai, with only three cursory edits on other pages. I can't even link you to one of her edits, because it was so utterly copyrighted content that it got stricken from the page history. The vast majority of hers, in fact, were completely copied from the Numerai page, with only hastily-written-high-school-paper levels of rephrasing, such as.
 * Ms. Custidio never got around to editing Numerai for you, just being "trained" by you to make nonsense edits such as copy and pasting a dozen mac & cheese recipes to the mac & cheese article. She has filled dozens of pages with nonsense junk like this (including several where she just asked ChatGPT to write stuff for her) that now needs to be dealt with by people who are actually here to improve this project, not just wasting time until they get the green light to make the COI edits they were paid to make. Then, the cherry on top, she evaded her block to try and scrub her talk page.
 * Mr. Hayat never disclosed he was being paid by you, but got your approval to jump straight into Numerai. He too quoted marketing materials directly from Numerai along with adding nonsense figures that weren't supported by any evidence.
 * What about you, Mr. Bodkin? Why, your very first edit was to add such non-promotion language as "Numerai's innovative strategy has led to impressive performance." Source? A random Medium blog (not a reliable source). You then argued  when that edit was reverted, having the utter gall to accuse the person undoing your promotional edits of using Wikipedia as a soapbox!
 * You removed several of their competitors. Then argued some more when it was reverted.  Then removed even more competitors (but I'm sure it was solely because it was uncited).
 * If you truly are concerned that the Numerai page contains several factual inaccuracies as well as promotional language, then you should do us all a favor and leave it alone for others to handle, because clearly you and your editors are only capable of adding more of the same. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:A5C8:50FA:2049:2767 (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What about you, Mr. Bodkin? Why, your very first edit was to add such non-promotion language as "Numerai's innovative strategy has led to impressive performance." Source? A random Medium blog (not a reliable source). You then argued  when that edit was reverted, having the utter gall to accuse the person undoing your promotional edits of using Wikipedia as a soapbox!
 * You removed several of their competitors. Then argued some more when it was reverted.  Then removed even more competitors (but I'm sure it was solely because it was uncited).
 * If you truly are concerned that the Numerai page contains several factual inaccuracies as well as promotional language, then you should do us all a favor and leave it alone for others to handle, because clearly you and your editors are only capable of adding more of the same. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:A5C8:50FA:2049:2767 (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you truly are concerned that the Numerai page contains several factual inaccuracies as well as promotional language, then you should do us all a favor and leave it alone for others to handle, because clearly you and your editors are only capable of adding more of the same. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:A5C8:50FA:2049:2767 (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you truly are concerned that the Numerai page contains several factual inaccuracies as well as promotional language, then you should do us all a favor and leave it alone for others to handle, because clearly you and your editors are only capable of adding more of the same. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:A5C8:50FA:2049:2767 (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Please🙏
Please. Swift Researcher (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)