Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2017 Archive Nov 1) (bot
Line 390: Line 390:
::I'm overthinking this right? [[User:JustaZBguy|JustaZBguy]] ([[User talk:JustaZBguy|talk]]) 01:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
::I'm overthinking this right? [[User:JustaZBguy|JustaZBguy]] ([[User talk:JustaZBguy|talk]]) 01:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
:::Probably. New editors who focus on their sandbox, or in draft space, is a good thing. We want new editors to gain experience in their sandbox before venturing out. Do you see any evidence of spamming or promotional writing? Referencing a government website, or a reliable source, isn't spamming. The question is whether thebalance.com (linked in the first sandbox you mentioned) can be considered a reliable source. The byline of the article referenced in that sandbox looks legitimate, but if you see a pattern of people linking to that site, it should be reported at [[WP:RSN]] for investigation. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 03:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
:::Probably. New editors who focus on their sandbox, or in draft space, is a good thing. We want new editors to gain experience in their sandbox before venturing out. Do you see any evidence of spamming or promotional writing? Referencing a government website, or a reliable source, isn't spamming. The question is whether thebalance.com (linked in the first sandbox you mentioned) can be considered a reliable source. The byline of the article referenced in that sandbox looks legitimate, but if you see a pattern of people linking to that site, it should be reported at [[WP:RSN]] for investigation. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 03:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

== Open Book Publishers ==

* {{LinkSummary|openbookpublishers.com}}
* [[Open Book Publishers]]
* Insource search {{sl|insource:"openbookpublishers.com"}} (47 results in mainspace)
* User: {{Userlinks|Lrodrp11}}
I recently noticed this being apparently spammed then noticed more existing instances. The article claims that those books are peer reviewed. It is unclear to me if adding such links as references is acceptable (just adding them as external link is not). I'm also notifying [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Open]] of this report for more input. Thanks, —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 04:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:46, 3 December 2017

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

    When reporting spam, please use the appropriate template(s):
    As a courtesy, please consider informing other editors if their actions are being discussed.
    Shortcuts
    {{Link summary|example.com}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template - Do not include the "http://www." portion of the URL inside this template
    • {{IP summary}} - to report anonymous editors suspected of spamming:
    {{IP summary|127.0.0.1}} --- do not use "subst:" with this template
    • {{User summary}} - to report registered users suspected of spamming:
    {{User summary|Username}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template

    Also, please include links ("diffs") to sample spam edits.

    Click here to start a new report
    Indicators
    Reports completed:
     Done
    no No action
     Stale
    Defer discussion:
     Defer to XLinkBot
     Defer to Local blacklist
     Defer to Global blacklist
     Defer to Abuse filter
    Information:
     Additional information needed
    information Note:

    linkspam on Jetstream Express

    Hello, just noticed that Jetstream Express was graced with a strange link promoting hotel vouchers, left by an anonymous user. I removed the link.

    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    VPN spamming

    This is an extension of Special:Permanentlink/809308041#Promotional_link_spam and Special:Permanentlink/809310310#Spammers_for_CU.

    Sites spammed
    Already blacklisted
    Other spammed domains

    Stuff for global blacklisting:

    Stuff for blacklisting:

    Uncertain (please help in evaluating):

    Spammers

    VPNs and webhosts:

    Already blocked:

    Not blocked:

    Blocked for 2 years. Lots of spam on these ranges, reverted 100+ links so far. This is still a work in progress. SIGH. MER-C 10:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Bump. MER-C 07:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    We need more eyes on (changes to the contents of) Category:Open_Local_COIBot_Reports, the first of these domains were noticed back in February by LiWa3, and quite a number of them have been noticed by LiWa3. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    That would have stopped about 20% of it. We nned to find a better solution. MER-C 09:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but if the system is being noticed, we would maybe had a chance to keep up. This wastes now a lot of time of the volunteers on this project. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. At least two of these domains were already blacklisted before I started; nobody (myself included) saw the big picture until recently. For the record, I've automated sifting through the contributions for links. The Phabricator ticket somewhat hinders this, but I can work around it. This is still not a satisfactory solution, but I have something in mind. Pay attention to the WMF's Anti-Harassment team -- their work has led to broadly applicable improvements in admin and checkuser tools. They'll soon be launching a consultation on the ineffectiveness of the banhammer independent of the glacial Community Tech process. (In Community Tech's defense, they recently deployed the range contributions stuff which makes dealing with this crap significantly easier.) MER-C 13:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm happy to help, but it's not clear to me how to do so. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The best solution to this problem so far is to whois any IPs you catch adding obvious spam and report any webhosts and colocation facilities here for blocking. It also helps to check the contributions for the range regardless of whether it is a webhost or not. If you see a domain exclusively added by non-stale throwaway accounts, please report them for CU. You can also watch some of the more frequently targeted articles; I will consider semi-protection requests for the most heavily targeted. MER-C 03:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    taxresolutioninstitute.com

    Injected to celeb article ☆ Bri (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    More refspam, says here it is a 3-4 person blog. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    webpronews.com

    Do people consider this a spam link? Appears we use it a fair bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I cannot search deleted archives but fail to find any active or deleted Wikipedia entry about iEntry Network or Web Pro News. I also can't see any relevant WP:RSN archived discussion about its use as a reliable source. It seems to be a tech blog with several posters and ad purchase. I'm not sure how popular it is, other than the many links in the encyclopedia. —PaleoNeonate – 09:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If one of these sites came across my desk today, I'd revert quickly. Yet another faceless entity posturing as reliable published sources. There are tons of links at Wikipedia. Many of the older ones are dead. Does this constitute spam? Depends on if the links were added in good faith by ignorant users or not. But I trust no blog. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doc James, PaleoNeonate, and Cyphoidbomb: maybe one for a mass cleanup, and XLinkBot for both ELs and references? If then any spammers show up (multiple XLinkBot warnings) we blacklist, otherwise this may teach those who are not aware of our policies and guidelines. Blogger has a similar faith. —Dirk Beetstra T C 04:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange user behaviour

    Ancy6280 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) No user page, the only entry is to create a sandbox that links to a third party site JustaZBguy (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually the sandbox contains a rough draft of what could be a fairly decent article. It has two sources, both of them good. Let's wait and see. It doesn't seem unambiguously promotional. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for kicks I put both domains into Special:LinkSearch to see if there was any other users that looked like this one because I'm super excited ::about my first contribution. The government site was referenced in other sandboxes but all those users had created user pages and had multiple edits, ::ietc.
    When I put in the other domain, I found a couple others that matched the following pattern:
    1. No user page
    2. sandbox article with link to 3rd party site
    3. No other contributions outside user's own sandbox, mainspace pages
    Jaimyjames (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Athina Morrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    NORMAN PRINCE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Dragonsorcerer09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Ancy6280 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    There are a couple others that meet (2) and (3) but have a user page stating that they are a student editor. They aren't editing anyone's post but their own?
    Soc221 Dubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Njoudyk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Jennaseacott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    I'm overthinking this right? JustaZBguy (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably. New editors who focus on their sandbox, or in draft space, is a good thing. We want new editors to gain experience in their sandbox before venturing out. Do you see any evidence of spamming or promotional writing? Referencing a government website, or a reliable source, isn't spamming. The question is whether thebalance.com (linked in the first sandbox you mentioned) can be considered a reliable source. The byline of the article referenced in that sandbox looks legitimate, but if you see a pattern of people linking to that site, it should be reported at WP:RSN for investigation. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Open Book Publishers

    I recently noticed this being apparently spammed then noticed more existing instances. The article claims that those books are peer reviewed. It is unclear to me if adding such links as references is acceptable (just adding them as external link is not). I'm also notifying Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Open of this report for more input. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=813340410"