Talk:Operation Orangemoody

Rename?

This article really should be merged somewhere, but I'm not going to waste my time recommending that. In the absence of that, I would suggest a rename to perhaps Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia as in the Wiki-PR article. "Orangemoody" alone doesn't seem to be enough. Coretheapple (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Operation Orangemoody perhaps? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC).

Sounds like a bad World War II movie, but anything would be an improvement. Maybe Operation Orangemoody (Wikipedia)? Coretheapple (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I like Operation Orangemoody. There's no need to disambiguate something that's unambiguous. Lots of sources called it Operation Orangemoody, e.g. The Washington Post, Newser, Computerbild. — Brianhe (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have no objection to that. Someone should do the honors. Coretheapple (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll do it. DN-boards1 (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit late, but I think instead of its current name of "Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia", I agree with the recommendation by @User:Rich Farmbrough to change it to Operation Orangemoody, as 1. "Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia" sounds clunky and is more like a sentence that would be in the lead of the article rather than an actual title and 2. Operation Orangemoody is just a better name as it is more commonly used and was the original name to the group. Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Selfref link

Re: {{selfref|For more information on Wikipedia's response to this situation, see [[Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody]].}}

Geogene removed this with an edit summary of "Do we normally included prominent links to the back of the house from articles?"

When the article is about Wikipedia the answer is sometimes. If you look at the various pages linked to in the templates at the bottom of the article, particularly pages that have "Wikipedia" in the name (Notability in the English Wikipedia, and many more).

I recommend keeping the selfref. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's why the {{selfref}} template exists. This is an appropriate use of it. - Brianhe (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I hadn't seen it done before. Geogene (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

All info pointing to the same source?

It seems that all of the information herein is really pointing to the same public-relations source; that is, apparently a press release from the Wikimedia Foundation (although that source is not made terribly clear in the writing-so-far of this article). Do we have any independent verification of the claims that have made by the Foundation? If not, then this article might very well fail: Just because a Wikipedia committee or group of editors says something, does that make what they say true? (Of course it is true that a press release was issued.) Methinks we should cite these claims to the original source wherever we can. and what, exactly, is that source? None of the news-media outlets cited herein, to my knowledge, conducted their own investigations as to the truth or falsity of this so-called "Operation." I hope to get more solid facts into this article. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Correction. I just noticed that the article states "On August 31, 2015, Wikimedia Foundation announced through its blog . . . " A blog is not a WP:Reliable source. Please consider that fact when adding to the discussion under this section. Thanks again. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not our job to police whether secondary sources have done their job. If they have an editorial board, then we trust that they have – within reason, of course. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: The 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa was reported by the Louvre. That was one source too. So what? Some folks' arguments in this sphere [1] are becoming increasingly incomprehensible to me. — Brianhe (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

That Louvre theft was heavily covered by WP:Reliable sources, and WP did not rely on only the Louvre's report of the crime, nor on second-hand versions of it. In the case of the present article about the alleged OrangeMoody gang, we have no source other than a communication from the Wikimedia Foundation that such a group of people actually exists or existed. I am suggesting only that the article be edited to reflect that fact. I don't want to make any change to this article myself because some folks have accused me (I think; the aspersions were rather oddly framed) of being part of this group. I am bringing up this point to improve the encyclopedia. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't do that. Per WP:NPOV: Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. Unless a reliable source expresses doubt, Wikipedia does not express doubt. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the defense of the article offered above, there is certainly more than one independent, corroborating source, beyond the WMF press release. Dayramir Gonzalez, interviewed by The Daily Beast; the cited article only has two paragraphs out of 17 that attribute WMF. Jimmy Wales, cited by The Guardian. Dan Thompson, Alicia Peyrano, Amanda Foster and Paul Manners, interviewed by The Independent. BeenAroundAWhile, these were all in the article when you opened this topic on 16 September. Brianhe (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding wording in lead

"hundreds of English and non-English news sources" yet it then lists 3 non English language examples. Shouldn't this be a mix of both English, non-english-but-latin-alphabet and maybe a non-English alphabet news outlet? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 07:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia → Operation Orangemoody – "Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia" is quite clunky. The name Operation Orangemoody, as pointed out by editors at Talk:Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia#Rename?, has been used by The Washington Post, and other sources such as The Independent and WIRED refer to "an investigation dubbed 'Orangemoody'", but never the phrase "Orangemoody edits", as far as I can tell - it isn't used as an adjective by RS in the way it's used in the current title of the article. casualdejekyll 21:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The current title suggests that Orangemoody was a ringleader of the scam, which doesn't seem to be the case; the proposed title is more effective at indicating that they were just the user after whom the investigation was named. Proposed title also improves on WP:CONCISION. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.