Talk:Elsevier/Archives/2021

Undisclosed paid edits

This article is being scrubbed by undisclosed paid editors linked to the Yoodaba sockfarm, which is operated by a marketing agency. This activity is ongoing since, at least, August 2020. This company uses anonymous edits and a very distinctive kind of proxy for sensitive edits.

Here's a list of edits I was able to verify. In reverse chronological order:

• 13:06, 20 April 2021 El Naschie context (already reverted)
• 14:21, 9 April 2021 Irrelevant content in the Resignations section. This is not a resignation. (already reverted)
• 16:46, 23 March 2021 Removing unnecessary information to maintain WP:NPOV -- indicative of relative prominence of opposing views. (already reverted)
• 16:17, 10 March 2021 28% is wrong per 2019 annual report -- Updated.
• 14:32, 10 March 2021 global STM publishing market in 2015
• 13:53, 9 February 2021 RM irrelevant content about a specific branch when Elsevier is a global company. UK is small part of the business. (already reverted)
• 16:05, 2 February 2021 EU Commission didn't investigate Anticomp practices
• 14:56, 28 December 2020 Source says negotiations have continued so this is wrong. Removed.
• 14:53, 21 December 2020 Company statistics updates...
• 18:11, 2 December 2020 Mendeley acquisition clarification (already reverted)
• 18:47, 24 November 2020 removed gpg info - nemo bis has a long history with this page. Content isn’t relevant to a global company, no data for other areas. (already reverted)
• 15:21, 20 October 2020 Need a WP:INDEPENDENT source here to support this information. Primary sources not allowed (already reverted)
• 17:39, 7 October 2020 Organizing sections within Market Model portion of the page
• 13:26, 2 October 2020 This is the current logo, not sure why the caption said otherwise. Updated some of the wording in the History section.
• 12:53, 26 August 2020 accurate publishing numbers and location updated (registered and blocked sock)

There are some old edits which I cannot retroactively check for the proxy. So the article should be reviewed beyond the above edits. Note that spotting problematic content is not as trivial as with common spammers, since it's often about omitting information or changing references to avoid linking to criticism, rather than adding promotional content. MarioGom (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@MarioGom: That's an extensive list, considering that it's from less than a year. Have you thought of bringing this matter to WP:COI/N, which is frequented by many more editors than this talk-page (which gets hardly any pageviews). COI/N is presumably watched by editors who have a lot of experience dealing with conflict of interest editing. This case merits their attention, since Elsevier is an important company. NightHeron (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I'll open a thread at COIN once I gather more information about other affected articles. MarioGom (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Opened a thread at COIN. @NightHeron: as you can imagine, the edit you reverted yesterday (diff) comes from the same proxy network. I didn't think they would be bold enough to continue after being exposed. MarioGom (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow this is pretty bad. Kenji1987 (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This is outrageous! Would you be willing to write up a LTA report so we know what to keep our eyes out for? BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 06:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@BrxBrx: I'm not sure a LTA report will be helpful. A lot of information about this sockfarm can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yoodaba. Their logged out editing usually falls outside the scope of sockpuppet investigation though. Also excessive public documentation of their current behavior is undesirable per WP:BEANS. I can say, however, that while they stopped in this article, they continue running at full steam. But I believe the frequent blocks hinder their effectiveness. MarioGom (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)