Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Bell Pottinger COI Investigations

This page should be moved somewhere other than talk space. Not sure where, but analogous to the copyright checking lists we have. Rich Farmbrough, 13:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC).


 * Note that there is a procedure for creating a by article diff-by-diff list for given editors, also used in wide copyright checking cases, that would be useful here. Rich Farmbrough, 13:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC).


 * Hmm - I'm not one with much experience in that area, but it'd be a great help. Perhaps the neutrality noticeboard? The Cavalry (Message me) 14:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's details at Contributor copyright investigations/Instructions - the tool is here, and this is an example report for Biggleswiki. Generating one of these for every involved account might be a useful way to approach this. Shimgray | talk | 19:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a demonstration list at Talk:Bell Pottinger Group/Affected articles/Biggleswiki and linked it from the bottom of the page. If these look useful, I've generated one for every affected user... Shimgray | talk | 20:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Scratch that - I've figured out how to incorporate this into the list below. Details (for all confirmed accounts) following... Shimgray | talk | 20:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Organization
I'm pretty much done for the evening. I've grouped many of them together - edits around a specific article or theme, etc. Some are surprisingly well-developed (the little cluster around prostate cancer, which may reflect one batch of editing or two) and it may well be that examining those articles brings out more problematic users. Shimgray | talk | 23:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Shimgray, what you've done is simply fantastic. You've turned my amateur article list into a professional cleaning operation. Thanks so much! The Cavalry (Message me) 05:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Boris Berezovsky
Copied from Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

Boris Berezovsky (businessman) is a client of Bell Pottinger and there is an admitted COI editor on the article (User:Kolokol1) - Kolokol is the URL for International Foundation for Civil Liberties (as well as being a chemical agent used in warfare, from which the foundation obviously takes their URL - the foundation being used in "warfare" against its opponents). The foundation is run by Alex Goldfarb, a close Berezovsky associate, who came to public recognition during the Litvinenko affair when he headed the Berezovsky PR campaign. The foundation itself is funded by Berezovsky. Berezovsky is a client of BP, and Goldfarb too has used BP for PR exercises, as per this and this. A legal case in the UK recently began in which Berezovsky is suing Roman Abramovich for billions of dollars, and in the lead up to the beginning of the case, the article has seen a whitewashing of the Berezovsky biographical article by Kolokol.


 * Here Kolokol1 is asked to declare whether they have a COI
 * Kolokol1 refuses to respond directly to the question
 * After again being asked, Kolokol1 states he has "an interest in Mr. Berezovsky being treated fairly and objectively"
 * Here Kolokol1 confirms "For the record, I am associated with several Russian dissidents, including the subject, you can call it COI, I don't care."
 * Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman)/Archive 3 and Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman) is full of instances where the editor has used cited policies and the like, which once reading this, put some things into perspective. There are many instances of Kolokol1 stating for the record that it was his intent to remove negative information from the article, regardless of what it was, using WP:BLP reasoning for doing so, regardless of the use of only highly respectable and reliable scholarly sources, yet engaged in original research and falsification of information as per this and this, and argued for this to be kept in the article.
 * The editor's edits to the article have been mainly subtle changes, which when looked at individually do not raise alarm bells to those who are not well-informed on the subject. When looked at overall, the edits to the informed editor look like a PR hatchet job in the leadup to Berezovsky's lawsuit, and I made note of this on the talk page only a few days ago.
 * This subject is a little unusual, in that one would need to make use of both English and Russian language sources to paint the picture that was desired, so I probably wouldn't expect BP IPs to be utilised, unless they have fluent Russian speakers on staff, but the hatchet job on the article is obvious to editors who are familiar with the subject. But obviously it is unacceptable that an admitted COI editor was given free reign by the community to perform the hatchet job on the article in the runup to the beginning of a highly public court case involving Berezovsky. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 23:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * At Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents I was adviced to post here. It looks like an editor in the Boris Berezovsky article openly declares connection to the subject and says (s)he doesn't care if it is considered COI. The subject of the article is involved in the current court proceedings with billions of dollars at stake. The article is found to be involved in promotional editing by other editors from Bell Pottinger, and the subject is a client of this firm. So, on one hand, we have evidence that commercial promotion attempts (direct violation of COI) are going on the subject of the article, and on the other hand we have an editor who declares connection to the subject, declares COI, gives hints through the username that (s)he might be connected to an organization connected to the subject. Supposing there should be some consistency in treatment of COI, if we have a small 100% proven COI at one article, but do not pay attention to another huge COI in the same article, declared by the user personally, that's strange. Whether it is appropriate or technically possible to check the relationship of the user to Bell Pottinger I don't know. But looks like the article deserves some attention. Grey Hood   Talk  23:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Two more rogues
Harry the Dirty Dog

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Harry_the_Dirty_Dog

and TerriersFan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TerriersFan

They have been under the guidence of Alex Woolfall who used to work for Bell Pottinger and have been working on behalf of Kate and Gerry Mccann and have edited any pages with regard to Madeline Mccann as well as the solicitors 'Carter Ruck' to try and improve their PR.

http://www.bell-pottinger.co.uk/uploads/publications_documents/22.pdf

This is all based upon the work of 'Cass Sunstein' the adviser to Obama who authored a paper enitlted Conspiracy Theories and cognitive infiltration where he first advocated this sort of thing. The infiltration of forums and blogs!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.46.187 (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither of the above accounts have anything to do with a PR firm, I'm afraid. I've looked into things, and both the above accounts are completely innocent as far as I can see. The Cavalry (Message me) 05:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a list where suspect accounts can be added?
I see there is a list of affected articles and another list of confirmed sockpuppets, but where is the right place if I would like other users to look into suspect accounts not already listed there? For example, I suspect User:Radicalafrica is an undisclosed lobbyist, and apparently I'm not the first to notice. I would like other users to review that user so their edits can be reverted and their account blocked if others agree. Requesting a sockpuppetry check seems to be the wrong procedure. Thanks, Wikipeditor (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've checkusered him and found some interesting things, but he's not Bell Pottinger related, so we won't list it here. It still needs to be investigated though, and it should be investigated openly through the proper channels, so I strongly suggest you request an SPI. Make sure you request a CheckUser, and use the "Request doesn't fit any of the criteria but you believe a check is warranted anyway" reason, drawing the reviewer's attention to this comment. The Cavalry (Message me) 05:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, kind sir Wikipeditor (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Same question for. Behaviourally, the only thing that distinguishes this account's activities from standard Bell Pottinger is the fact that it was created outside office hours. (The two consecutive edits between 7 and 8 am GMT were in the summer and therefore actually after 8 am.) It was typical for Bell Pottinger to create separate throw-away accounts for the creation of articles, but doing so at 10pm is out of character.

However, there are two factors to keep in mind: The AnjaliLK10 account (probably named after British-Indian actress Anjali Jay, the country code for Sri Lanka, and 10 for 2010) was registered on Wednesday 24 February 2010 and immediately created this article on Cabraal. This happened at 10 pm British time, so after office hours but consistent with an emergency call, and at 5 pm from the point of view of Qorvis or anyone negotiating with the IMF in Washington. Such as, presumably, Cabraal himself.
 * In December 2009, Bell Pottinger had subcontracted the PR for Sri Lanka to Qorvis, whose seat is in Washington, DC.
 * In late February 2010, Sri Lanka had severe trouble with the International Monetary Fund ("The International Monetary Fund said on Thursday [25 October 2010] it is delaying the third tranche of a $2.6 billion loan to Sri Lanka after the government missed its 2009 deficit reduction targets." ), and international media scrutiny on Sri Lanka's Central Bank and its boss Cabraal was imminent.

Who other than Bell Pottinger would create puffery on or remove critical links from all of the following topics, and do nothing else? Note that the Cabraal article is listed as a Bell Pottinger article only because I have put it there due to this connection. But the other three articles edited by this account have all been edited directly by Diginerd84 and/or Biggleswiki.
 * Ajith Nivard Cabraal, governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (confirmed Bell Pottinger client)
 * Dahabshiil (confirmed Bell Pottinger client), a kind of bank in Dubai with involvement in Somalia
 * Common Purpose UK, a business-oriented 'charity'
 * Paramount Group (confirmed Bell Pottinger client), a South African defence company.

I already sent a link to this account to functionaries-en, but I have still not seen a block or any other reaction, so even though Keegan confirmed that it arrived I doubt that it is being processed. Hans Adler 11:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Why the scare quotes? Common Purpose is a registered charity in the UK. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (This is very off-topic.) Yes. It is legally a charity, but its 'charitable' purpose is networking between leaders. I.e. it is charitable in the same sense as a fraternity or a masonic lodge, and not in the original sense of the word. See charity: "In general, an attitude of kindness and understanding towards others, now especially suggesting generosity." There is an element of benevolence here, but it is all about getting people together for mutual benefit. The chairman is Sir David Bell (publisher). I don't know if or how he is related to Lord Bell of Bell Pottinger, but there is a Bell Pottinger person on the board. of Common Purpose. And if you have watched the Bell Pottinger video, then you know how important networking is for the firm. Hans Adler 13:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Back on topic, gents, I've indef'd AnjaliLK10 for obvious spamming. I'm not a CU so I can't tell if it's technically related to Bell Pottinger and/or the other accounts listed here, but the behaviour is certainly very similar. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the etiquette of posting here or posting articles to the list without any evidence but.. has anyone checked the Trafigura article (BP client at one time I believe). Various POV tags etc added & removed over several months.&mdash; Rod talk 13:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Working on a list of accounts with suspicious activity on this article. Meanwhile, this appears relevant. It links to this newspaper article (Google translate link). Hans Adler 14:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The following are all suspicious activities that I could find by directly examining the article history, i.e. not the talk page or any related articles etc.:
 * SPA made 4 slightly pro-Trafigura edits in January 2007.
 * Beijing IP tried hard in to get certain negative information removed or moved to a sub-article. (4/5 April 2011)
 * Almaty IP helped. (8/9 April 2011).
 * 1-edit account vandalised the article, successfully giving cover to a previous content removal by one of the above IPs. (9 April 2011)
 * Beijing IP edit warred to restore previous content removals after a regular editor finally noticed them. (24 April 2011)
 * Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, IP continued the edit warring with its first ever edit (25 April 2011), but has since made constructive unrelated edits, some of which were related to China and the Chinese internet firewall.
 * Beijing IP continued the edit war (9 May 2011).
 * This is all very suspicious indeed, stale, and probably unrelated to Bell Pottinger. Hans Adler 14:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an SPI case for Bell Pottinger related socks, see Sockpuppet investigations/Slaine1. Not shouting, just nice and bold so everyone can see. Please add accounts there, cheers. WilliamH (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

please check this history of this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.46.187 (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Barbara, Lady Judge
I don't see a green "done" mark against Barbara Judge in the "Individual people" section. Does that article still need checking? It seems ultra-positive about her role in the nuclear industry and related "keynote" speeches. Also see these edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbara,_Lady_Judge&diff=next&oldid=430507137

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbara,_Lady_Judge&diff=next&oldid=448424536

Lelijg (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The article for Judge still needs a going-over. Thanks for noting those two edits; I've gone through the history and identified two more possible BP accounts, which are listed for checking. Shimgray | talk | 14:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I picked that article at random to work on it without even seeing this thread. Thanks for the pointers. Cases such as this, where Bell Pottinger has replaced a poor article by a much better written but non-neutral article, are relatively tricky. Especially in the case of BLPs, where we must make sure not to fall into the other extreme. I will continue working on it tomorrow, but if this is somehow pressing then of course others are free to get involved as well. Hans Adler 02:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, I am usually very wary of blunt instruments, but here if it's too complex, I would support "Revert with fire". There's a little voice saying that BP's clients getting better articles should not be our priority. Rich Farmbrough, 15:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC).


 * It does look as if Biggleswiki checks out Digerd's edits and tidies up - do others see this pattern? Rich Farmbrough, 15:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC).


 * Yes, but I don't think it would be safe to draw any conclusions from this. It would be beansy to go into more detail here. Hans Adler 16:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Salt?
Should we salt articles such as Paramount Group due to their involvement in this and multiple recreations? --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  17:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think salting is needed. there might, one day, be a decent article on them! 15:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete?
Mopani Copper Mine ... looks like it was created solely by BP folk, although I'm not usre about subsequent clean up by surprisingly dedicated IPs. Rich Farmbrough, 02:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC).


 * OK I'm going with speedy deletion of this one. Rich Farmbrough, 02:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC).


 * I've restored it... It's not G11 worthy IMO and as "one of the largest mines in Africa" we should have an article on it. SmartSE (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

My morning at Bell Pottinger
I had a pleasant morning this morning. Well, as pleasant as one might hope, considering the task that I had set for myself: to go to Bell Pottinger and give a lecture to staff about why their past editing of Wikipedia was not good, and to give them advice on how to do better. For their part of the program, they made a presentation to me explaining what happened from their end, and tried to give at least an explanation (but note well: not an excuse) for their actions. To my surprise, they wanted to have press there, so you'll read about it tomorrow most likely. (Press included PR Week (their invitee) and the FT (my invitee)).

To be clear, outside of one remark from Lord Bell himself (who said that even now he thinks they did nothing wrong, a position I find fairly astonishing, but whatever, life goes on), the apologies from staff were detailed, aware of why what they did was wrong, and I judged them to be sincere. I don't foresee a relapse.

In their presentation of what went wrong, the main thing that leapt out at me is that they did not know how to appropriately escalate. There were other problems to be sure, starting from their default assumption that Wikipedia would be hostile to PR people to such an extreme degree that if they were to self-identify they would be treated as liars. But more importantly, they did not seem to have a good grasp on the ways that one might escalate a problem issue in order to resolve a problem.

One case that they presented in depth, Common Purpose is one that I think Wikipedians in general would be wise to review. Again, to stress, Bell Pottinger's staff did not present their side of the story in order to justify their actions. They were contrite and apologetic. But I asked to understand what happened, and their explanation (not excuse) was useful to me.

The story here goes back a long way, and can be seen in the edit history and the talk page. In essence, a video which wouldn't by any stretch of the imagination survive a moment's scrutiny from experienced Wikipedians as a reliable source was used as as source for some pretty wild claims, including that "Common Purpose is a part of a grouping that wants ultimately 'to kill you'". The organization themselves tried to remove this nonsense but did so in a clumsy way and did not follow community advice on other matters, and ended up getting themselves blocked and their website blacklisted for spamming. Bell Pottinger was ultimately retained to assist.

I believe, based on long experience working with BLP's myself, that had this been posted to WP:BLPN it would have been straightened out immediately. But at the time they were working on this, Bell Pottinger didn't know to do that. So they used sockpuppets and so on. In their defense, they also started their efforts by removing advertising puffery that the client had (again clumsily) put into the article in the first place.

Finally, during the Q&A time, the staff raised some concerns that due to their actions, Wikipedia might be biased against their clients. Some articles were summarily deleted that they suggested should probably be restored. (Including one that existed already pre-Bell Pottinger.) They will send me a list, which I will review personally but also post here for others to consider. In other cases, client articles may now have excessive weight given to the Bell Pottinger situation. Given that Bell Pottinger has taken full responsibility for things, and says that the clients did not know the extent of what they were up to, I absolutely think we need to carefully revisit this issue and make sure that no one is violating NPOV by saddling mere customers of Bell Pottinger with this scandal. It is worth checking to make sure there is no overreaction. (I ask a lot from us in terms of NPOV - no matter how annoying someone has behaved towards us, they always deserve NPOV, it is our highest commitment and moral responsibility, we must never use Wikipedia to slam people we don't like.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (reposted from Jimbo's talk page)
 * This whole thing sounds to me exactly like the reaction of a user to a bad BLP, except it's not a BLP. Users who are upset by bad BLPs find themselves forced to deal with Wikipedia without knowing all the rules and end up getting reverted and blocked when they're basically just trying to prevent Wikipedia from spreading lies about them. It's a bad idea to treat BLP victims this way, and it's a bad idea to treat the equivalent of BLP victims this way.
 * If an individual tried to remove material which said his goal is to kill you, and ended up using sockpuppets, violating COI, or otherwise breaking rules to do so, just making sure the individual is contrite would be the wrong way to handle the situation. Yes, he broke the rules, but ultimately, it's Wikipedia's job to be accurate and not to harm living subjects and it is our responsibility to consider their interests. Just because we are talking about an organization doesn't make things any different; the organization is still made up of people, who can still suffer when Wikipedia spreads falsehoods about them. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Financial Times account of the visit is here.--CharlieDelta (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If Bell Pottinger are truly repentant, we could ask them to help the cleanup by providing a complete list of all the accounts they have used. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Did the list of deleted articles aver arrive? Rich Farmbrough, 17:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC).

Finishing up
There's still outstanding scrutiny needed. Or are we all fed up with it? Rich Farmbrough, 17:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC).