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
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 124: Line 124:
:"All of us"? I am skeptical that this is a sudden grass-roots defense of this obscure blog on an even more obscure Wikipedia page, so I've started [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Walteredwardsenglish|a SPI]]. Bourbonblog appears to be Tom Fischer's blog (see [[WP:SPS]]). While Fischer may be an expert, that hasn't been demonstrated to Wikipedia's standards, and even experts are forbidden from spamming. As I said, sources ''about'' Fischer appear to be thin. Sources that quote Fischer are relatively common, but in those cases, it would be much better to use those sources with attribution, rather than use Fischer's own site.
:"All of us"? I am skeptical that this is a sudden grass-roots defense of this obscure blog on an even more obscure Wikipedia page, so I've started [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Walteredwardsenglish|a SPI]]. Bourbonblog appears to be Tom Fischer's blog (see [[WP:SPS]]). While Fischer may be an expert, that hasn't been demonstrated to Wikipedia's standards, and even experts are forbidden from spamming. As I said, sources ''about'' Fischer appear to be thin. Sources that quote Fischer are relatively common, but in those cases, it would be much better to use those sources with attribution, rather than use Fischer's own site.
:Please see [[WP:RS]], which is a content guideline that calls for "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Equally important, much of the content, even if correct, has been trivial and promotional, and has been added by [[WP:SPA|single purpose account]]. I am specifically removing this site from pages because I suspect it has been added in bad faith as spam by involved parties. I don't have a signed confession, but I think what I have presented so far is pretty damning. That's why I started this discussion. I have no interest in harassment, and making that accusation because I am trying to improve the project is a fast-track to getting [[WP:BOOMERANG]]ed. This is specifically about the addition of this link to the site. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 03:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
:Please see [[WP:RS]], which is a content guideline that calls for "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Equally important, much of the content, even if correct, has been trivial and promotional, and has been added by [[WP:SPA|single purpose account]]. I am specifically removing this site from pages because I suspect it has been added in bad faith as spam by involved parties. I don't have a signed confession, but I think what I have presented so far is pretty damning. That's why I started this discussion. I have no interest in harassment, and making that accusation because I am trying to improve the project is a fast-track to getting [[WP:BOOMERANG]]ed. This is specifically about the addition of this link to the site. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 03:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

==Sri Vadivelan Stores==
{{User summary|Sri Vadivelan Stores}} [[Special:Contributions/68.100.116.118|68.100.116.118]] ([[User talk:68.100.116.118|talk]]) 04:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
{{User summary|Sri Vadivelan Stores}} [[Special:Contributions/68.100.116.118|68.100.116.118]] ([[User talk:68.100.116.118|talk]]) 04:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:09, 17 April 2016

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:

    AOMEI

    USER

    Doris2016003 (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)

    Link

    aomeitech.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    sukhbirsinghbadalofficial.blog.com

    Links
    Users

    I removed this link from few pages but some users are keep adding it from different IP and usernames. Thank You – GSS (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Pretty flagrant spam, adding links indiscriminately. Spammer isn't even pretending that there's any relevance to the various articles they're adding the links to. Like here. --Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This guy has also added https://twitter.com/officeofssbadal a few times[1][2][3] Might be worth considering as well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for looking at it also please have a look at www.sukhbirbadal.com it seems unofficial website to be used at Sukhbir Singh Badal. I have reported SPI as it seems same person or a team doing so from different IP's and usernames. Cheers – GSS (talk) 07:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Links
    Users

    Here another one. All links are non-official and the IP repeating the same thing as last time. (Example here) – GSS (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Link spamming over several months

    Ongoing for a few months now, the majority of the spam has been reverted by recent changes patrollers, so I'm not sure if there are more accounts involved. But the blatant spamming by multiple accounts over a period of several months suggests bigger problems. (How do I trigger the bot to generate that report thing? That's the primary reason I reported it) Elaenia (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    There's very sparse records for this domain, so I can't really tell. Parthimurugesan, while engaging in good faith editing, was potentially up to some shenanigans unrelated to this report. MER-C 12:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Heriot-Watt University Honourary Degree spam

    This WP:SPA editor, probably acting in good faith, has obviously found a list of recipients of said degrees, and has taken to inserting same into BLPs across the project. I first saw it a few days ago when reverting a mention, with a citation that didn't actually show the honourary degree of Susan Greenfield, Baroness Greenfield. I reverted because mention of only one of Greenfield thirty two honourary degrees seemed WP:UNDUE. I've only found one citation in his contributions that actually was accurate. The rest just lead to a Herriot Watt search page, though I haven't looked at each of his contributions, yet.

    I'm here to ask expert anti spammers to have a look, and advise me if I should open a conversation on the editors Talk page about it. There are other reasons besides spam of course, COI perhaps - I'd rather not use a sledgehammer to crack this nut, if you know what I mean. Thx. -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, without using the usual templates. The narrow focus is a concern but it's still possible that this editor is here to improve Wikipedia, or can be convinced to do so. MER-C 08:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Essay- and homework-writing spam

    occasionally adding promotional links for

    No action needed currently (links cleaned up), just noting it here to inform other editors - in case the pattern continues. GermanJoe (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Domain spamming

    Lots of spam additions lately spanning several IPs and accounts. Over 500 according to link search to a domain which appears to be a sales/promotional non-reliable source. Elaenia (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Podcast link spam

    Kkelley5544 (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) Repeated spamming of podcast link Le Deluge (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Bourbonblog.com

    This doesn't quite appear to be a reliable source. Sources about him seem thin, but the blog's main author might arugably be considered an expert per WP:SPS. The site has occasionally been used by experienced editors in good faith, but it looks like the majority of uses as a reference have been added by WP:SPA IP addresses from the same provider:

    All edits are related to adding content supported by the blog. A few are particularly transparent, like this edit to actor Michael Rosenbaum, which has nothing to do with bourbon and the source mainly mentions the blog's author's minor cameo in a movie. I removed some of the links, but I've got to take care of other stuff, so I'm posting this for further input/assistance. Grayfell (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    'GRAYFELL'S How do you support your accusations and reason for removal? - How is this BourbonBlog.com not a reliable source? You provide no proof. You state you are removing citations - but why are they are incorrect, untrue or for what reason?

    It seems BourbonBlog.com is a legitimate and respected media outlet for Bourbon, whiskey and spirits. A Google search shows that it is often quoted by major national media outlets such as USA Today, New York Times, NPR. Legitimate content is required to support articles from expert resources from a whiskey publisher for Wikipedia.

    Have you removed other media outlet citations from these articles or left them be only to target one media outlet / expert resource? If you an expert in this community of whiskey and film to determine what is correct and incorrect please tell us so we can understand why you are targeting the citations or media outlet.

    Targeting contributors because another contributor doesn't like a particular media outlet or the author could be considered against Wikipedia's Policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and not an appropriate.

    Factual citations and neutral points of view that existed for years have been seem to be left with no citation now.

    Kindly reverse the changes you have made unless you have evidence to support that such citations were incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:B01C:6A7B:CC83:6115:1242:EE6A (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought I was fairly clear. Bourbonblog.com fails Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines, because it appears to be almost entirely self-published and doesn't have a demonstrated reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. This is likely spam because the overwhelming majority of links to this site came from single-purpose IP editors using the same ISP. Many of those IPs geolocate to Newburgh, Indiana, which is close to Evansville, Indiana, where Bourbonblog.com's LLC is registered. Every single entry sourced to this site which I've examined is either too trivial to bother with, or could be very easily sourced somewhere else. That a brand-spanking new account felt the need to blank this section strongly supports the idea that there is a non-neutral motive for these edits. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Grayfell you've made accusations against a resource, so you need to provide that fact-checking, accuracy and reputation are an issue here that you have claimed. Otherwise, should we just take your word for it? All of us on this page have to wonder what your motives are exactly? You've already had a chance to give this evidence as requested, but you didn't reply to it. Your repeated behavior is coming across harassing and targeted. Ronalaca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronalaca (talk • contribs) 03:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    "All of us"? I am skeptical that this is a sudden grass-roots defense of this obscure blog on an even more obscure Wikipedia page, so I've started a SPI. Bourbonblog appears to be Tom Fischer's blog (see WP:SPS). While Fischer may be an expert, that hasn't been demonstrated to Wikipedia's standards, and even experts are forbidden from spamming. As I said, sources about Fischer appear to be thin. Sources that quote Fischer are relatively common, but in those cases, it would be much better to use those sources with attribution, rather than use Fischer's own site.
    Please see WP:RS, which is a content guideline that calls for "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Equally important, much of the content, even if correct, has been trivial and promotional, and has been added by single purpose account. I am specifically removing this site from pages because I suspect it has been added in bad faith as spam by involved parties. I don't have a signed confession, but I think what I have presented so far is pretty damning. That's why I started this discussion. I have no interest in harassment, and making that accusation because I am trying to improve the project is a fast-track to getting WP:BOOMERANGed. This is specifically about the addition of this link to the site. Grayfell (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sri Vadivelan Stores

    Sri Vadivelan Stores (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) 68.100.116.118 (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=715649342"