Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles

Subjects

It would be useful to be given the subjects than the un-named sandboxes were about. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

"Shakedown" and "bad actors"

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Orangemoody. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I will gladly accept whatever consensus is arrived at there. Chillum 00:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we got this right.[1] There is a person or persons behind these accounts. The Wikipedians who have been involved in this investigation have taken care not to try to identify those parties; instead, we have referred those issues to the WMF to make contact with the article subjects and determine what further actions can and should be taken. Someone has tried to take advantage of people who were perhaps a bit naive about the purpose of Wikipedia and whether or not they or their businesses were notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Risker (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a considerable difference between offering to write a Wikipedia article for payment (and perhaps not being very good at it) and "blackmail" which, according to the Independent has been claimed by someone in Wikipedia's voice. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The word "blackmail" is not included in the report to the community or in any of the originating posts to the community listing articles and accounts. This was a considered decision. That others choose to characterize the situation with that word (a few other similar ones have also been used) is...well, it's a lexical choice. Risker (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there were also threats to have articles deleted if they were not paid. Shakedown really seems apt. It is really the classic "It would be a pity if someone threw a brick through your shop window, if you pay use we will make sure it does not happen" when they are behind the bricks. Chillum 22:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are networks of editors in the UK who are evidently paid to maintain articles, particularly hagiographical ones on so called celebrities who inhabit much of the UK media space nowadays.

I ended up in an edit war with one such 3 years back and two very good editors who are still thankfully active on Wikipedia (unlike I who got utterly fed up with the whole farce) were at their wits end trying to maintain the article in question to a reasonable standard. It was bloody relentless. An investigation of 'celebrity' edits...particularly D-Z list Celebs in the UK and their hagiography maintainers would drastically improve wikipedia overall. My 1.9c anyway. Thanks for reading. Wikimucker (talk)

People seem to conflate the two matters "We will write an article for a fee" and "We will maintain the article for a fee."

In the first instance the article creator could {{G7}} it if they weren't paid the agreed fee, and there would be no element of a shakedown. Indeed the reverse applies "You've written the article, as agreed, now whistle for your money!" would be an unethical position for the client to take.

On the other hand "If you don't pay a monthly retainer we will delete your article." is clearly unethical, and probably unlawful.

I have seen very little evidence in this case that suggests the latter is what happened. It may of course be so, but until we have verifiable sources, not based on what Risker wrote we should not be saying that it did. (Indeed the "lexical choice" has created a narrative that may be impossible to dislodge if it is found to be untrue.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I found this discussion interesting, I am just curious if Orangemoody comes out clean of blackmailing allegations as claimed by The Independent, can the victim sue the newspaper ? Chapellousa (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They can sue. Whether they stand a good chance of winning is a question for them to ask their lawyer. There are interesting questions relating to the pseudonymous nature of the allegedly defamed entity, whether the level of legitimate disrepute is such that it is impossible to do significant harm to their reputation, and so forth. These details vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Non-techie users

This page is linked in a Newser article: Wikipedia Just Busted Gang of 'Black Hat' Editors, ^[1] Washingon Post also covered it: Wikipedia sting snares hundreds of accounts used for paid editing ^[2]

I, for one, am interested and want to learn. It's harder when jargon isn't explained, sometimes a Wikilink is all that's needed. Otherwise, I'm guessing.

The first sentence opens, "The (currently 254) articles on this list have all been created by one of the socks ...." What's a sock? By checking the disambiguation page, I think it's Sockpuppet (Internet).

Appreciate your work. Thanks.RaqiwasSushi (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a sock-puppet. But to be clear no-one who knowns anything about the investigation is suggesting that all the accounts were run by one person, or even that they were all run by people engaged in socking.

My take on it is that there were a number of people, who may or may not have known each other. Doubtless many of the accounts are socks. But the main contention is that they are all accounts of undeclared paid editors.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

References

^ http://www.newser.com/story/212248/wikipedia-just-busted-sock-puppet-ring.html
^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/02/wikipedia-sting-snares-hundreds-of-accounts-used-for-paid-editing/

Note from a victim

I wrote an email directly to someone on this list, offering WMF investigation contact info and my unpaId help to write/restore a decent bio (as this person clearly meets notability requirements but is not very citation savvy). I include the reply below, with identifying details redacted:

I was not aware of this so thank you for bringing this to my attention. When I was approached by the person who offered his services (for a fee) I suspected he was a college student looking to make a few bucks. Since I had once attempted to create a Wikipedia entry a few years ago, and then it was removed for lack of....whatever it was lacking, I already had the article I wanted to post written and still on my computer. So I made a few updates and handed it over. Sure enough it was posted, and I was satisfied so I paid him what he asked. It was not a lot, maybe $125 or something. But I apparently did not trust him enough to feel comfortable about it because I went back to check it on several occasions. However, it was always there, so I began to think there was no problem. But....I guess there was!

Too bad this happened. I thought a Wikipedia article seemed like something worthwhile because I am often contacted to provide [identifying details redacted]. My thought was that a Wikipedia article might alleviate my responding to as many inquiries, but since this did not work, I am fine with answering e-mails from those who feel a need to contact me for more information. I would think my website would be enough anyway, so I will let it go at that.

Regardless, thanks for your note, and for letting me know what happened.

It's distressing that Orangemoody capitalized on an article written and deleted years ago; sounds like this shakedown has been around for a while. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another victim?

Here an anon editor claims that " extortion fraudulent demand" was made in connection with the article Everett Stern. Subject of article, 2016 US Senate candidate, states that money has changed hands. This is at least 2 of the listed 4 Orangemoody hallmarks, if I'm counting right. — Brianhe (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-created article

Vijay Shekhar Sharma, one of the articles listed here, was re-created about two weeks ago. Not being an admin I'm unable to compare the current text to the prior to see if it is eligible for WP:G4; maybe someone else can check. – Brianhe (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brianhe, this appears to be a fresh start. The deleted versions are all more developed.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged,thanks for the prompt reply. - Brianhe (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is possible you want investigate other persons like in spain, for example one editor called sabbut, he write one article about one big store called "El corte ingles" i have a very bad experience and really my actuation not good, but finally i write in the discussion and he delete all. Really he delete all in the same moment i write all, and the article is really a publicity about the shore, and for i can read, some editors tell him, but he dont make case, is very strange, and i think is a employee of this shore, this shore paid to this person for the publicity in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.90.237 (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.newser.com/story/212248/wikipedia-just-busted-sock-puppet-ring.html

[2] ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/02/wikipedia-sting-snares-hundreds-of-accounts-used-for-paid-editing/

[1]

[2]

v t e Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia
Investigation	LTA Articles list Account list Sockpuppet investigations Sockpuppet investigations (archive) Orangemoody Administrator's noticeboard (announcement) Confirmed sockpuppets (category) Suspected sockpuppets (category)
Commentary	Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia (t) COI editing on WP (t) Signpost (t) Wikimedia blog
Discussion	LTA talk Article list talk Accounts talk BLP noticeboard (investigation pages) BLP noticeboard (article) User talk:Jimbo Wales (archive) Signpost talk Administrator's noticeboard (archive) Paid editing
Related	Operation Orangemoody