Wikipedia talk:List of paid editing companies/Archive 1

Existence of this page
Discussion regarding the existance of this page is here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going to list elance, which had spawned a lot of paid editors in the past, but you already linked to its successor, upwork. I see that there are plenty of jobs still listed there with titles like "I want an 'about me' page on wikipedia" (posted yesterday and has over 5 proposals). - Bri (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you want to start listing PR companies? this might be a start. - Bri (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Am listing PR companies mostly involved with editing Wikipedia. Which others are you suggesting I add. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

WikiWiz
This list has become my go-to reference when I come across unfamiliar Wikiediting services being advertised, hopefully you don't mind me pointing out ones that I find that aren't listed yet :p
 * http://www.wikiwiz.net/
 * Discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive929
 * Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 105
 * Also Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive929 (ban discussion for Sunilseth15)


 * Advertises mostly selling backlicks
 * WHOIS information is private (created June 2016)
 * Contact on website listed as: 101 California Street, Suite 2710, San Francisco, CA 94111, USA, Phone: 415-801-0007
 * Same coordinates as Social Media "like" peddler https://www.digimaxpro.com, also private WHOIS, but a distinctly Russian registrar (http://nic.ru)
 * In their http://www.wikiwiz.net/page-survey, they list three "example" basic articles:
 * 1) dealchecker by
 * 2) Beardo (company)
 * 3) IONIS 361
 * and three premium ones:

Hopefully this is helpful? I'd be happy to crosspost on COIN (or let you do it) if you think this needs more eyes on it. :) Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  08:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Avenda Systems (created by admin )
 * 2) Haventec (created by who is probably Ric Richardson (which he also mostly wrote and attempted to write about his daughter too, Lily Richardson)
 * 3) Global Partners (created by )
 * Thanks User:Salvidrim!. Feel free to add this right to this page itself with the evidence provided. Anything still active enough for an SPI? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's little evidence that the six articles they list as examples involve WikiWiz, they don't make a claim that they made them, just that they are examples. There are some off-wiki claims that Beutler is behind the Sunilseth15 sockfarm but little actionable evidence. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  14:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sidenote, I've always been a curious guy, often delving into deleted articles, old discussion, renamed accounts and such.... and it really is almost an unsratchable itch not to be able to quickly see the deleted histories of the two redlinks above.... I had grown so used to it. :p Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  14:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This sock made one Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I've always been a curious guy, often delving into deleted articles, old discussion, renamed accounts and such.... and it really is almost an unsratchable itch not to be able to quickly see the deleted histories of the two redlinks above.... I had grown so used to it. :p Meadows Creations (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Linkage to accounts
Assuming that there isn't an LTA open for it, what should be done in case we think that a firm is linked to an individual account or to a sockfarm? I just put a note on an SPI page, but expect that not to be "ideal". ☆ Bri (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess the question is how good is the evidence. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In the case I'm thinking of, we have the scamee's account on User talk:Jimbo Wales backed by OTRS, and ☆ Bri (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Current locations: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 226, Requests for undeletion/Archive 280. – Athaenara  ✉  16:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Self-outed freelancer with large sockfarm
This guy self-outed at ANI. No known company links. Though he's been blocked, I'm sure he's still selling through freelancer.com (account name is same as his old enwp username he linked to it in ANI and it received feedback on a 300 euro job yesterday). Should we list here? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

repindia.com
Is the trail of crumbs I added at Articles for deletion/Nangia & CO LLP sufficient to add repindia.com to the list? Cabayi (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Block corporate IPs?
So at what point do we try to see if we can get the IP address range for a company like 3Q digital blocked? Where do we even get that done? (the things I don't know are vast...) Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe also an aspect to consider: if they edit using their corporate addresses, a COI is easier to detect than if they need to use mobile or proxies (although behavioral evidence may potentially make it easy enough too)... — Paleo  Neonate  – 14:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would hope that blocking their IP would get their attention. Indeffing individual accounts isn't doing it.  This is not some fly-by-night shop. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If that's needed, I certainly agree, — Paleo Neonate  – 16:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I know this is an old conversation, but with respect to the question of how to get a corporate IP range blocked for a finite duration, you can report it to WP:AIV (insofar as promotional edits are a form of vandalism). Or drop me a note and I'll look into it. I've blocked corporate ranges before.

Indef-blocking an IP address or a range, on the other hand, likely requires ArbCom involvement, going by my memory of the Church of Scientology getting all of its IP addresses indef-blocked. However, non-indef blocks of any length up to 3 years is possible for organizational IP address ranges. School IP addresses are routinely blocked for a year or more at a time. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is where I hope we are careful. I've asked for review and lifting of long-term blocks of a large (>1 million users) public library system in my area for instance. We really don't want to discourage contributors, especially first-time users getting their feet wet with wiki editing. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1 million users isn't the same as 1 million IP addresses. It would be difficult to determine the number of actual users behind the addresses. The best one could do is estimate a proportion of unconstructive edits compared to the total edits from the range. As I recall, there are limits to the size of a rangeblock than can be imposed, like possibly a /16 (65K addresses) is the maximum permitted. I'm not sure, I've run into the limit only once, by accident. Most organizations have way less IP addresses. As an administrator I'd have to be convinced that there's a pervasive problem coming from a particular range, and that a large proportion of the activity from the range constitutes non-constructive edits. And as I said, the block would be temporary, not indef, but the block duration might be proportional to the length of time the abuse has persisted. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually my figure is a SWAG based on the number of "members" reported by KCLS, around 700,000+, plus a portion of the un-registered users who can walk in, plus the cross-registered Seattle Public Library users (>375,000 members), plus free wifi users, etc. Seems like 1M might be considerably conservative for a system that serves a county of 2.2 million and is very active: it has the first or second largest circulation of any library in the U.S.
 * I forwarded the documentation of the block to and I think he agreed that it was disproportionate. Shortly after that I also sent him documentation on a block of a large governmental IP range for over two years; this one affected around 1M users as well (details withheld here for privacy).
 * Bottom line: These long-term, wide ranging punitive blocks aren't appropriate. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, but have not had time to follow this up. I think such wide range blocks are not in conformity with blocking policy, which is to use range blocks to the minimal extent and for the shortest possible time. This definitely includes multi-year school blocks, even those done at the request of the school. I've been a little reluctant to start the discussion myself, because I   myself,  despite having checkuser,   have insufficient experience with rangeblocks to be confident of dealing with them  properly. I think its a matter for ANI, and will forward the information to any checkuser who wants to follow it up there.  DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Most multi-year school blocks I have seen are a result of normal escalation of block durations, and only for single addresses, not ranges. A school with a 3 year block will have a bunch of shorter blocks in its history. I've never actually seen a school request a block, but I have seen a school complain about a block without committing to taking any steps to solve the problem on their end (and as far as I know the school is still blocked).
 * My own blocks of IP ranges have been fairly short in duration. The bigger the range, the shorter it should be, in my opinion. A very small range like a /24 (256 addresses) I'd be willing to block longer if it's obvious that the block will have a net benefit to the Wikipedia project. That, basically, is the decision every admin must make: will this admin action result in an overall benefit to Wikipedia or not? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * to be continued, elsewhere. I'll let you know.  DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Was this continued elsewhere DGG? I think I saw it come up at a recent RfA but definitely not the right forum for an extended discussion so I stayed out of it. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not yet. Unfortunately there are other priorities, but perhaps I can get to it before the next school year.  DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe User:PCHS-NJROTC will want to join here, or propose another area to discuss the topic ☆ Bri (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Peopleperhour
It looks like Peopleperhour is removing job listings to create WP pages as "fraudulent". This might have started November or December last year. This is a good change! Did somebody reach out to them? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Professionals Inc / Wiki Pros Inc
Email providing some reference articles. No idea if they're valid -

Personal Profile References:

Company Profile References: -- John (Daytona2 &middot;&#32; Talk &middot;&#32; Contribs) 21:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Aksamit
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Aronson
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_Abrams
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litecoin
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PureVPN
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Foy_and_Associates,_PC

Top COI/UPE articles
I am working on a system to summarize top articles that have been subject to editing by UPE sockpuppet farms. Here is an initial version of it: User:MarioGom/TOPCOI. Hopefully this can help to find new sockpuppets of existing UPE operations faster. --MarioGom (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:MarioGom would you be interested in working on an AI tool to detect UPE? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I might be able to help with that, yes. Did work on that tool already started? --MarioGom (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Perfect User:MarioGom User:Halfak (WMF) is the one to speak with. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * MarioGom, as far as I know, I don't think anyone has started analysis or modeling work yet. We'd love to have you join us in  while you work. --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Such important work. Any luck so far, MarioGom, Halfak (WMF)?
 * It seems one easy way to train models is to search linkedin and other sources for available services, and sign up for an article to be created. – SJ + 16:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI MarioGom, some researchers picked up the dataset. See https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3366423.3380055 for their recent publication.  --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I missed this comment back in the day. Thank you for the heads up! --MarioGom (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think these are two different things with some overlap; what you might want be slightly different from the dataset cited just above. The dataset is articles that we could associate with at least one edit by nearly-certain UPE editors and/or sockfarms, especially for machine learning purposes, with a minimum of false positives. What you want may be a different look at articles that are frequent targets of likely UPE/COIediting. It looks like your dataset is selected by articles heavily edited by socks, regardless of proven UPE, am I right? - Bri.public (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's right. Although most of the sockfarms I added are UPE (see User:MarioGom/TOPCOI/Users). In fact, I may remove non-UPE sockfarms from the list, since it pollutes my results. I'm using this data to find UPE socks, and other kinds of LTA socks are just noise in this context. MarioGom (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Added category "Never blocked"
I just added a category for. It seemed kind of bogus to list the properly disclosed companies under "Unknown if blocked". If there are no objections it might be a good idea to wrap this in cot ... cob so they don't show up with the "bad guys" at first glance. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

boulevardvoltaire.net
Came across this website. Should it be added to the list? Sam-2727 (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like Wiki Specialists under another name. Either that or this bunch copied WS's website and didn't proof read it. Nthep (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll add it under that section for now with an "uncertain" note for the possibility of future evidence that it is a separate operation. Sam-2727 (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

double entry
bullet points 2.48 and 2.57 are about the same company. I made sure by clicking the links which leads to the same real world address. I don't feel comfortable deleting something there myself, so I'm leaving the info here. --Dutchy45 (talk) 10:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I eliminated the duplicate. Bri.public (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Move firm to "Never blocked"?
Hi, I'm Rhiannon and my firm Lumino just got added to this list. As you can see from my user page and past contribs, I used to work at Beutler Ink and recently started my own consultancy. I don't edit directly, nor do I recommend that clients of mine do. I'm currently listed under Beutler Ink in the "Never blocked" section.

I'd like to ask if someone would be willing to move Lumino to the "never blocked" section, and list my account with it?

As more context here: My work is focused on teaching companies how to navigate Wikipedia, prepare drafts and make requests themselves within the COI guidelines. The quote that's on the page is from an email I sent out to a few companies who have had their article flagged for promotional content and / or COI editing. Ironically, to warn them of the risks of not engaging with Wikipedia properly. The full email includes the line: "In order to make lasting changes on Wikipedia, it’s imperative that you work in-line with the site’s rules and collaborate ethically and transparently with the editor community." Happy to answer any questions folks might have! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 16:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , ✅ Special:Diff/1009833354. I have doubts about how this should be listed though. I assume you are not editing, but doing consulting, and your client list is not discloseable? --MarioGom (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, appreciate the edit and your note here. You're correct: I provide consulting for clients, guiding them in how to engage transparently with Wikipedia, in line with the Terms of Use and COI guidelines. I never recommend they edit directly nor do I edit for them. There might be clients in future who prefer I make requests on their behalf, if that's the case, I'll fully disclose on the relevant Talk pages and include them on the list on my user page (same as I did when I was with Beutler Ink). Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 20:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Refining categories
We could move a lot of the companies in the "unknown if blocked" to a section that clearly marks them as undisclosed paid editing. Any company without any disclosed account and claims about having lots of edits / created pages / years of experience is obviously undisclosed paid editing. MarioGom (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Consider me in favor of this restructuring. - Bri.public (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * cleaned up and reorganized. Some of the other entries were actually disclosed; now this should be clearer.  Also added in the disclosed orgs from the CREWE open letter, though most don't seem to have edited -- a bot that scanned userpage updates for mentions of any COI statements or mention of the orgs here would be helpful. – SJ +  01:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! MarioGom (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)