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/2018 Archive Jul 1) (bot
Line 161: Line 161:


{{rto|Biwom}} Seems to be also spammed by these, and there seem to be many IPs involved as well. Mind having a look as well to the COIBot reports linked in these templates? --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 12:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
{{rto|Biwom}} Seems to be also spammed by these, and there seem to be many IPs involved as well. Mind having a look as well to the COIBot reports linked in these templates? --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 12:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

== Travel site spam - technical question ==

* {{LinkSummary|edenisland.com-seychelles.com}}
* {{LinkSummary|robinsoncrusoeisland.com-fiji.com}}
* {{LinkSummary|northislandseychelles.com-seychelles.com}}
* {{LinkSummary|grandhotel.com-nuwaraeliya.com}}
* {{LinkSummary|dusitthani.website}}
* {{LinkSummary|huvafenfushi.com-maldives.com}}
* {{LinkSummary|meeruislandresort.com-maldives.com}}
(and a few more following the same naming pattern)

See COIBot reports for more details. All of these sites have the same layout and likely are maintained by the same spammer - started apparently in January/February. Almost all sites are named "location.com-archipelago.com", and due to this naming pattern it's difficult to search for other similar sites (external link search doesn't like wildcards within such search patterns). Would it be possible to create a manual DB-query or a more complex Regex-statement to look for and filter similar links? There are possibly a lot of similarly-named sister sites for other travel locations in the area. [[User:GermanJoe|GermanJoe]] ([[User talk:GermanJoe|talk]]) 10:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:28, 1 August 2018

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:

    Telephone spam at Roku, Inc.

    Please take a look at the recent editing history of Roku, Inc.. There are a number of new editors that have been adding a supposedly toll-free number (area code 855), which is most likely a spam/scam phone. Most of these editors have already been blocked, but new ones keep popping up. Would an edit filter perhaps be effective to prevent them to readding their spam? –FlyingAce✈hello 17:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm curious about this as well. This number (1-855-553-9444 also written 1855-553-9444) has been added to several other pages: IPTV, Dish Network, Charter Communications, Verizon Wireless, and others. In addition to just adding the number, there's also this edit, where it was fudged. This edit is a different number, but is probably the same spammer, and uses the letter O instead of the numeral zero. Grayfell (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See technical support scam. There's two edit filters, but we're dealing with criminals which have access to dirt cheap third world labor. $400 is a lot of money. MER-C 18:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @MER-C: which filters are these? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wrong -- there is only one: Special:AbuseFilter/793. MER-C 16:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be possible to add the latest phone number (diff) to the filter? –FlyingAce✈hello 20:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @MER-C: indeed, can that telephone number be added to it? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. MER-C 18:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Reminder augusto fagioli, Get Wikipedia Page at 85% Off

    This is spam, to me. Reporting.

    Message:


    BEGIN>>>> 

    Hello augusto fagioli

Do you think Gangnam Style, Justin Bieber and Adele went viral based on just the quality of their work? You’d be wrong if you thought so!

Generating the right type and amount of exposure for yourself or your business is not just a matter of fate or chance but rather a focused and calculated work of digital sciences.

In the digital age, businesses, actors, writers, singers and everyone else who wants to be popular have teams working for them to strategize and manage their content and reputation over the internet. We believe it’s time you took a step in the same direction to get the fire started.

What do we propose? We will take you and your business truly global with a place on the world’s largest online encyclopedia, taking you instantly to the top of your league! It might look like a simple page on Wikipedia but here is what you really need to know to understand the real power of Wiki.

1. Wikipedia is the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet.
2. It is ranked the fifth-most popular website.
3. It comprises more than 40 million articles in 299 different languages.
4. The encyclopedia has 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors each month.
5. Wikipedia's level of accuracy has approached that of Encyclopedia Britannica.

We are not saying that this is all you’ll ever need to go from common to ‘famously known’ but this will surely be the smartest first step towards it.

Interested to know more about it? Don’t wait any longer! We are offering a Special 85% discount on our Digital Services this New Year Click Here to Activate your 85% Off Deal Now.

Your Sincerely,
Debra Lin
Senior Consultant
Wiki Professionals Inc
4330 Clarence Court
Fayetteville, NC 28306

    <<<<END


    Details:


    BEGIN >>> 

    Messaggio originale
ID messaggio	<df92eb6b2e313111d2fb567407fb46e3@maildedi2.com>
Creato alle:	12 luglio 2018 16:00 (consegnato dopo 11244 secondi)
Da:	WikiPedia <debra.lin@wikifiersinc.com> Tramite Mailigen Mailer - **CIDe3fc2040169e9dd1**
A:	augusto fagioli <augustofagioli@gmail.com>
Oggetto:	Reminder augusto fagioli, Get Wikipedia Page at 85% Off
SPF:	PASS con l'IP 62.63.191.32 Ulteriori informazioni
DKIM:	'PASS' con il dominio maildedi2.com Ulteriori informazioni
DMARC:	'FAIL' Ulteriori informazioni


Scarica messaggio originale

    <<<<END

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustofagioli (talk • contribs) 12 July 2018 (UTC)

    earthpulse.net

    May be suitable for the unlinkbot perhaps, appears promotional and to have been inserted as external links over time by multiple addresses/accounts. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @PaleoNeonate: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Fundraiser websites

    gofundme.com

    I was surprised to see this fundraising site is not blacklisted yet. Spotchecking a few usages "references" to this site are either thinly-veiled misuses to promote ongoing fundraisers for various causes, or should be replaced by independent sources for significant donation drives. I'll clean them up, but wanted to check first: have there been any previous discussions about this relatively popular site? (did a Wiki search, but found nothing detailed) GermanJoe (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    indiegogo.com

    is a similar site with even more dodgy usages in Wikipedia. GermanJoe (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    globalgiving.org

    Another crowdfunding platform, this one is focussing on charity projects (see above "Fundraiser websites" for related info and discussion). Links are misused, primarily by undisclosed COI-editors, either for thinly-veiled donation drive promotions or to "verify" irrelevant self-published PR information or to cite the site's obscure internal vetting ratings as some kind of "award" (neither noteworthy nor credible). These usages have zero encyclopedic value and violate several content guidelines. Only a small minority of links, including a few usages in GlobalGiving, are OK-ish but could be handled by whitelisting. GermanJoe (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe: per diff I have added the .com. Need to see some data. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    According to COIBot the link has been used approx. 90 times, approx. 10 of these links may be acceptable (although the extensive usage in GlobalGiving needs some trimming anyway). If you need more info or specific examples, please let me know (I am currently working through some of these links, and have yet to come across a really good usage). GermanJoe (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    discussion crowdfunding sites

    I am sympathetic to this, like with petitionsites. Blacklist? --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    GoFundMe has little use for ELs on WP, but there are legitimate notable commercial products that use Indiegogo for funding and thus serve as a valid EL for those products (it's basically not quite Kickstarter, but still recognizable). --Masem (t) 04:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masem: if they are legitimate notable commercial products then they have an official website I presume. Or do you mean that some of those have it as their official website (and in that case, what would be propotions, is it something that we can do through whitelisting?). To me, the only reason to have the fundraising as an EL is if the fundraising itself is the subject of the article.
    I would presume these are pure primary sources (in case used as references). Should in principle be replaced with secondary sources to show that the fact itself is worth mentioning, though unlike with petitions, that may be more difficult to get. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently gofundme has 172 active mainspace links, indiegogo is more common with 768 links (in MER'C extended linksearch). I suspect only a small minority are some sort of legitimate usage and would not be replaceable. If that's really the case at the end, both sites should be blacklisted - but with these numbers it'll take some time to verify the situation more thoroughly. It would be great if other editors could spotcheck a few more of these usages to get a better picture of the situation. I haven't found a valid and irreplaceable usage yet, but have checked only 30-40 cases in detail so far. The most common invalid usages seem to be 1) blatant advertising/spam 2) usage of a redundant link, where an independent source already exists 3) passing mention of a likely unremarkable fundraiser. GermanJoe (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would hope legit products have a website or something else besides the fundraiser page. For example Atari VCS (2019 console) (sufficiently notable) is using indiegogo for funding, but we have its official page so don't link the indiegogo page. But if they were using the indiegogo page as their current product page with specifications and everything, we'd likely link that, even if it offered "buy" or "support us" type payment links. --Masem (t) 13:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masem: true. Judging from Joe's post, it suggests that most of the current use is not like that. And we have a whitelist for a reason, to me these look like typical sites that get mis/abused (just like with petitions. It is all fun and games, but you get a lot of 'come and save the peanutbutterbadger by signing the petition [here]' on en.wikipedia. Until now, I have only seen one whitelist request for an open petition that succeeded, and maybe a handful of links to closed ones - they basically do not have utility on Wikipedia. That is what I am trying to gauge here as well: how much is mis/abuse, how much is needed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I fully agree that gofundme should be blacklisted as spam - I have never seen gofundme used by any legit commercial use that would filter into WP. Indiegogo is still very unlikely to be used in a similar method, but it does have enough "reputation" that can enter into the discussion about a WP standalone topic, but then at that point, most reputable products using indiegogo likely have a better website. So Indiegogo should be an edit filter rather than a blacklist, so that it should warn uses from editing but not block them in the rare case it might be reasonable. --Masem (t) 16:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Your remark is rather perpendicular to Joe's "a similar site with even more dodgy usages" .. the first that I tried, Sean Michel, RJ Mitte, Isabel Rosado, Sabina Vajrača and 9000 needles are all dead links. That seems the fate of many links, all dead, see Betzefer for a good example of that.
    Taking Sabina Vajrača as an example, the text is 'Summer Abroad (planned)', carrying a link to the fundraising (which, actually, is at www.indiegogo.com/projects/summer-abroad#/). That is exactly the type of primary stuff that we don't want to use - it is not independent, likely a crystal ball, ánd soapboxing. That is also the case with many of the above (if you go to find where the article now actually is), bad primary referencing, that in the case the situation is now is plain soapboxing. As for my mentioned case of petition sites, if something is worth mentioning, it should have independent secondary sources - this is not the use of self-published sources. I have the feeling that Joe's analysis is similar.
    The Oatmeal is the first which I think is fine, there the references make sense.
    I split up and renamed this section, I will pull the trigger on gofundme.com, although I also think that the second (and all other similar fundraising sites) should go, having the whitelist take care of the rest. IMHO, disruption for the very few links that are genuine will be minimal. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll clean up the gofundme cases over time, but frankly don't feel like looking into all 800 Indiegogo links. Anyway, like Beetstra I believe a blacklist with occasional whitelist requests is needed for both sites (and similar cases) to push back this kind of misuse. When I have some time, I'll also think about a clarification of WP:RS for such sites: links to active petitions and fundraisers should never be acceptable as refs or ELs, unless the fundraiser itself is a notable topic. Both cases should be explicitly mentioned in the guideline. GermanJoe (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I support blanket blacklisting all crowdfunding websites. The situation is qualitatively similar to cryptocurrencies, with a couple of orders of magnitude less money. I'm quite surprised crowdfunding fraud is not a bigger deal, and we don't see as much spamming. Professional, legit, notable crowdfunds should have an official website, and the amount of funding and progress would likely be covered by secondary sources. There should be no need to link to a crowdfunding page. MER-C 10:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @MER-C: the 'spamming' with these sites is likely the same type as for petition sites - a couple of people adding one particular petition to one particular page on Wikipedia, and that happens then with many individual causes (with for each cause a different group of people and a different link). Not the typical one person adding multiple links to multiple pages. Patterns is similar to pornhub - many schoolkids who add it to the wikipedia page of their school. No 'spamming', just abuse on many individual fronts (for the notable porn sites I have never seen spamming campaigns by SEOs or people from the sites on Wikipedia ...).
    For the notable crowdfunding websites we would follow the same as for other websites, we whitelist an index.htm, or an about page. I am a bit weary to pull the trigger on the other one with 800 pages linking to it, that may cause a stirr. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have started a discussion at WT:RS to clarify the guideline itself regarding this aspect. GermanJoe (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    handlingemotions

    Domains

    Accounts

    SPI case

    The apparent sockmaster is globally blocked; SPI in progress. —PaleoNeonate – 01:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I added a user and domain per SPI results. —PaleoNeonate – 19:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @PaleoNeonate: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    gminsights.com

    Hello. This month, at least 2 users have added spamlinks to this website. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 10:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Biwom: Seems to be also spammed by these, and there seem to be many IPs involved as well. Mind having a look as well to the COIBot reports linked in these templates? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Travel site spam - technical question

    (and a few more following the same naming pattern)

    See COIBot reports for more details. All of these sites have the same layout and likely are maintained by the same spammer - started apparently in January/February. Almost all sites are named "location.com-archipelago.com", and due to this naming pattern it's difficult to search for other similar sites (external link search doesn't like wildcards within such search patterns). Would it be possible to create a manual DB-query or a more complex Regex-statement to look for and filter similar links? There are possibly a lot of similarly-named sister sites for other travel locations in the area. GermanJoe (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=852935990"