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 <>

> 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 (,
> 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" <email clipped>:
> > Do you really think they may be acting in bad faith?
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [mailto:
>] 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" <email clipped>:
> >>  Glad to hear it.
> <text clipped for brevity>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>

David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to