Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam targeting small businesses and celebrities"

2015-09-03 Thread Peter Southwood
Do you really think they may be acting in bad faith?
Peter

-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Trillium Corsage
Sent: Wednesday, 02 September 2015 10:58 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam 
targeting small businesses and celebrities"

The Orangemoody network seems to have been providing a service: bring the 
apparently self-submitted but failed drafts of articles of persons, 
organizations, and businesses up to compliance with Wikipedia standards and get 
them live, then accept a previously negotiated fee. After some months of 
safeguarding those articles for free, they would offer to continue doing so at 
a monthly rate. I'm not seeing the harm.

Oh, I'd like to check if the articles were actually unduly promotional and POV 
and so forth, unfortunately the erstwhile investigators have deleted them so 
no-one except administrators may see. Which comes in handy for the 
investigators, because it means everybody must go by their characterizations of 
the articles.

I heard a murmur that Orangemoody would actually request deletion of its own 
articles if the subject failed to agree to the monthly fee, but Risker said 
this vaguely as if there were only a couple or few examples of this.

As well, though the IP addresses have not been disclosed, one of the accused 
Orangemoody accounts belongs to a Bangladeshi editor of three or more years. 
Raising the question of whether geolocation to Bangladesh and other nearby poor 
countries was a clue to the investigators to connect the Orangemoody accounts. 
Which on confirmation would raise the further question of whether the entire 
case was almost exclusively comparatively well-off westerners destroying the 
business and livelihood of impoverished Bangladeshis and other easterners just 
trying to put food on the table for their kids.

 Trillium Corsage

02.09.2015, 21:53, "Matt Campbell" :
> Glad to hear it.
>
>  Original message 
> From: James Heilman 
> Date: 09/01/2015 10:31 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam 
> targeting small businesses and celebrities"
>
> We have a number of discussions ongoing with respect to what measures we
>
> should take to address the issue of promotional paid editing generally and
>
> to prevent this from happening again
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse.2FOrangemoody
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_James/Paid_editing
>
> --
>
> James Heilman
>
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
>
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
>
> As of July 2015 I am a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation
>
> My emails; however, do not represent the official position of the WMF
>
> ___
>
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.6086 / Virus Database: 4409/10559 - Release Date: 09/02/15


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam targeting small businesses and celebrities"

2015-09-03 Thread Yongmin Hong
2015. 9. 3. 오전 6:00에 "Trillium Corsage" 님이 작성:
>
> The Orangemoody network seems to have been providing a service: bring the
apparently self-submitted but failed drafts of articles of persons,
organizations, and businesses up to compliance with Wikipedia standards and
get them live, then accept a previously negotiated fee.

Using multiple account is violation of enwp policy (Sockpuppetry), and
undisclosed paid editing is in violation of wmf ToU. In any way, that's
no-no. And nobody owns the Wikipedia page, so you cannot delete the article
because 'subject did not paid the fee'.

--
revi
https://revi.me
-- Sent from Android --
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam targeting small businesses and celebrities"

2015-09-03 Thread David Goodman
Trillium, they were not writing to  " bring the apparently self-submitted
but failed drafts of articles of persons, organizations, and businesses up
to compliance with Wikipedia standards ". They were mostly posting the same
rejected article, supplemented sometimes by references that made it look
more impressive, but actually had little if any relationship with the
articles subject. They did act to "get  them live", but they did it by
subterfuge, using various tricks to bypass the usual process of new page
patrol and other review.  T

I  personally examined all the articles; so did   several other people with
long experience in knowing what passes WPs deletion processes. Out of the
over 200,  I was able to identify 3 where it might have been possible to
write a satisfactory article; other people spotted a few additional ones.
The remainder were on topics where nobody could do so.  If the perpetrators
of this scheme did know Wikipedia,  as they claimed to in their sales
pitches, they would have known this also, and known that they were asking
for payments for what they would have known they could not deliver. If they
had no such knowledge, they were making false claims of expertise.  In
either case, they were sufficiently clever to make no guarantee.

Are you still " not seeing the harm"?

Sometimes "well-off Westerners" have done similar things,  though we have
had no previous example of such blatant and extensive extortion,  and we
have hundreds of cases where we have proceeded equally against them.

Matt, it isn't WP they are going to sue. It's the people who defrauded
them. It isn't removing this material that might give us a bad reputation;
it would have been the failure to remove them.  No technical measure will
prevent similar attacks on our integrity, though ones under discussion will
make it more difficult for naive beginners.  Only vigilance by WPedians who
are willing to   fully and knowledgeably  examine contributions will have
any substantial effect.  But we do in fact have something to be ashamed of,
which is  our previous negligence: there are probably 100,000 or so
articles not challenged in the past that need to be skeptically revisited.




On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Trillium Corsage <trillium2...@yandex.com>
wrote:

> Response to Peter Southwood's question.
>
> Are the investigators acting in bad faith? Does a mob know it is a mob, or
> is it that the people in it have lost the capacity for self-critical and
> analytic thought? On the one Orangemoody article I've been able to review
> so far, Bosch Sensortec (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosch_Sensortec),
> I found it to be a solidly-sourced, neutrally-toned, and informative
> "stub." It's currently being derided by Orangemoody investigators as
> promotional copy-and-paste of an alleged company press release (which has
> not been pointed to) and further claimed without visible evidence to have
> been contracted out by Orangemoody to a low-wage author through Elance.
>
> The answer is that I don't know; in order to examine it further I'd like
> to view the deleted articles to see for myself whether they were actually
> promotional and unsourced obvious advocacy articles. Or if, like Bosch
> Sensortec, they tended actually to be pretty good. Unfortunately the
> Orangemoody investigation's team has decided they must remain unavailable
> to the public, allegedly to protect the article subjects from repeat
> alleged victimization.
>
> Trillium Corsage
>
> 03.09.2015, 07:55, "Peter Southwood" :
>
> > Do you really think they may be acting in bad faith?
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
> wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Trillium Corsage
> > Sent: Wednesday, 02 September 2015 10:58 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors'
> blackmail scam targeting small businesses and celebrities"
> >
> > The Orangemoody network seems to have been providing a service: bring
> the apparently self-submitted but failed drafts of articles of persons,
> organizations, and businesses up to compliance with Wikipedia standards and
> get them live, then accept a previously negotiated fee. After some months
> of safeguarding those articles for free, they would offer to continue doing
> so at a monthly rate. I'm not seeing the harm.
> >
> > Oh, I'd like to check if the articles were actually unduly promotional
> and POV and so forth, unfortunately the erstwhile investigators have
> deleted them so no-one except administrators may see. Which comes in handy
> for the investigators, because it means everybody must go by their
> characterizations of the articles.
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam targeting small businesses and celebrities"

2015-09-03 Thread Trillium Corsage
Response to Peter Southwood's question.

Are the investigators acting in bad faith? Does a mob know it is a mob, or is 
it that the people in it have lost the capacity for self-critical and analytic 
thought? On the one Orangemoody article I've been able to review so far, Bosch 
Sensortec (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosch_Sensortec), I found it to be a 
solidly-sourced, neutrally-toned, and informative "stub." It's currently being 
derided by Orangemoody investigators as promotional copy-and-paste of an 
alleged company press release (which has not been pointed to) and further 
claimed without visible evidence to have been contracted out by Orangemoody to 
a low-wage author through Elance.

The answer is that I don't know; in order to examine it further I'd like to 
view the deleted articles to see for myself whether they were actually 
promotional and unsourced obvious advocacy articles. Or if, like Bosch 
Sensortec, they tended actually to be pretty good. Unfortunately the 
Orangemoody investigation's team has decided they must remain unavailable to 
the public, allegedly to protect the article subjects from repeat alleged 
victimization. 
  
Trillium Corsage

03.09.2015, 07:55, "Peter Southwood" :

> Do you really think they may be acting in bad faith?
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
> [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Trillium Corsage
> Sent: Wednesday, 02 September 2015 10:58 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail 
> scam targeting small businesses and celebrities"
>
> The Orangemoody network seems to have been providing a service: bring the 
> apparently self-submitted but failed drafts of articles of persons, 
> organizations, and businesses up to compliance with Wikipedia standards and 
> get them live, then accept a previously negotiated fee. After some months of 
> safeguarding those articles for free, they would offer to continue doing so 
> at a monthly rate. I'm not seeing the harm.
>
> Oh, I'd like to check if the articles were actually unduly promotional and 
> POV and so forth, unfortunately the erstwhile investigators have deleted them 
> so no-one except administrators may see. Which comes in handy for the 
> investigators, because it means everybody must go by their characterizations 
> of the articles.
>
> I heard a murmur that Orangemoody would actually request deletion of its own 
> articles if the subject failed to agree to the monthly fee, but Risker said 
> this vaguely as if there were only a couple or few examples of this.
>
> As well, though the IP addresses have not been disclosed, one of the accused 
> Orangemoody accounts belongs to a Bangladeshi editor of three or more years. 
> Raising the question of whether geolocation to Bangladesh and other nearby 
> poor countries was a clue to the investigators to connect the Orangemoody 
> accounts. Which on confirmation would raise the further question of whether 
> the entire case was almost exclusively comparatively well-off westerners 
> destroying the business and livelihood of impoverished Bangladeshis and other 
> easterners just trying to put food on the table for their kids.
>
>  Trillium Corsage
>
> 02.09.2015, 21:53, "Matt Campbell" :
>>  Glad to hear it.



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam targeting small businesses and celebrities"

2015-09-02 Thread Matt Campbell
Glad to hear it.

 Original message 
From: James Heilman  
Date: 09/01/2015  10:31 PM  (GMT-05:00) 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List  
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam 
targeting small businesses and celebrities" 


We have a number of discussions ongoing with respect to what measures we

should take to address the issue of promotional paid editing generally and

to prevent this from happening again



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse.2FOrangemoody



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_James/Paid_editing



-- 

James Heilman

MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian



The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine

www.opentextbookofmedicine.com



As of July 2015 I am a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation

My emails; however, do not represent the official position of the WMF

___

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam targeting small businesses and celebrities"

2015-09-02 Thread Thomas Goldammer
Why not make it a bit more difficult for them to do their foul play? Maybe
enwiki needs a stricter rule enforcement system for sources in articles
about promotion-worthy entities like living people, existing
businesses/organizations, etc. Just allow only external, reliable, and
confirmable sources and throw everything else out. Even if it is plausible.
No exceptions. Of course, someone would need to go through all articles in
question... And check the noteworthiness of the entities while you're at
it. :) It's some work, but I think it's worth the efforts.

Why not make it an event, maybe even with a little prize for people who
throw out the most unsourced statements in such articles. ;) But jokes
aside. Seriously, there could be (and I guess is) a large number of
paid-edited promotional pieces of text in enwiki (and certainly other
language versions, too). Get rid of it the hard way, otherwise the problem
won't go away, but grow by the day.

Th.

2015-09-03 2:07 GMT+02:00 James Heilman :

> Yes some interesting comment by Trillium. Where the articles mainly
> promotional? Yes very. A number of them were copied and pasted from press
> releases by the companies in question.
>
> Were a number of the editors from the developing world? Also yes. This is
> because they are willing to work for less and Orangemody was hiring from
> sites like Elance.
>
> I guess the fundamental question is, is Wikipedia a workspace to provide
> employment for those in the developing world who are willing to do PR piece
> work for some unknown PR firm? Or is Wikipedia an encyclopedia.
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
>
> As of July 2015 I am a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation
> My emails; however, do not represent the official position of the WMF
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam targeting small businesses and celebrities"

2015-09-02 Thread James Heilman
Yes some interesting comment by Trillium. Where the articles mainly
promotional? Yes very. A number of them were copied and pasted from press
releases by the companies in question.

Were a number of the editors from the developing world? Also yes. This is
because they are willing to work for less and Orangemody was hiring from
sites like Elance.

I guess the fundamental question is, is Wikipedia a workspace to provide
employment for those in the developing world who are willing to do PR piece
work for some unknown PR firm? Or is Wikipedia an encyclopedia.
-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com

As of July 2015 I am a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation
My emails; however, do not represent the official position of the WMF
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam targeting small businesses and celebrities"

2015-09-02 Thread Trillium Corsage
The Orangemoody network seems to have been providing a service: bring the 
apparently self-submitted but failed drafts of articles of persons, 
organizations, and businesses up to compliance with Wikipedia standards and get 
them live, then accept a previously negotiated fee. After some months of 
safeguarding those articles for free, they would offer to continue doing so at 
a monthly rate. I'm not seeing the harm.

Oh, I'd like to check if the articles were actually unduly promotional and POV 
and so forth, unfortunately the erstwhile investigators have deleted them so 
no-one except administrators may see. Which comes in handy for the 
investigators, because it means everybody must go by their characterizations of 
the articles.

I heard a murmur that Orangemoody would actually request deletion of its own 
articles if the subject failed to agree to the monthly fee, but Risker said 
this vaguely as if there were only a couple or few examples of this.

As well, though the IP addresses have not been disclosed, one of the accused 
Orangemoody accounts belongs to a Bangladeshi editor of three or more years. 
Raising the question of whether geolocation to Bangladesh and other nearby poor 
countries was a clue to the investigators to connect the Orangemoody accounts. 
Which on confirmation would raise the further question of whether the entire 
case was almost exclusively comparatively well-off westerners destroying the 
business and livelihood of impoverished Bangladeshis and other easterners just 
trying to put food on the table for their kids.

 Trillium Corsage

02.09.2015, 21:53, "Matt Campbell" :
> Glad to hear it.
>
>  Original message 
> From: James Heilman 
> Date: 09/01/2015 10:31 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam 
> targeting small businesses and celebrities"
>
> We have a number of discussions ongoing with respect to what measures we
>
> should take to address the issue of promotional paid editing generally and
>
> to prevent this from happening again
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse.2FOrangemoody
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_James/Paid_editing
>
> --
>
> James Heilman
>
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
>
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
>
> As of July 2015 I am a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation
>
> My emails; however, do not represent the official position of the WMF
>
> ___
>
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam targeting small businesses and celebrities"

2015-09-01 Thread Richard Ames
This is covered in depth at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody

Good job to wikimedians and the WMF!

Regards, Richard.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Matt Campbell  wrote:

> ICYMI...
>
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/wikipedia-rocked-by-rogue-editors-blackmail-scam-targeting-small-businesses-and-celebrities-10481993.html
>
> Guess no organization can be completely safe vs. a few bad actors
> exploiting their positions of trust in it.  But with so many people acting
> as voluntary editors, it's hard to see how the WF can protect itself from
> exposure when stuff like this happens.  I mean, some of the victims are
> sure to sue the WF, since where there's money and a criminal offense,
> there's usually lawsuits.  But worse than that is the black eye it gives
> the WF.
>
> No winners in this mess.  Sad day all around.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
The greatest collection of shared knowledge in history. Help
Wikipedia, participate now: https://en.wikipedia.org/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,