Safer Nicotine Wiki talk:WikiProject Spam

From Safer nicotine wiki

Emblem-important.svg When reporting spam, please use the appropriate template(s):
As a courtesy, please consider informing other editors if their actions are being discussed.
{{Link summary|}} -- 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|}} --- 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.

{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used|link=Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-07-18/WikiProject report|writer= Mabeenot ||day =18|month=July|year=2011}}

{{:Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Indicators}}

Suspicious new articles

List of reports here. Remove transclusions when all finished to keep page readable.

Template:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/Suspicious articles/27 November 2021 Template:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/Suspicious articles/11 December 2021 Template:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/Suspicious articles/24 December 2021

IP with exclusively spam edits adding unrelated links (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) adds links to ceetrust/loginwiz to unrelated articles

As far as I can tell, this user has done nothing other than add links to this ratings site, presumably as references to ratings. After I warned them the first time, they responded claiming that shte site "is probably the only reliable source publishing Live+7". I don't see a strong need to include Live+7 ratings for shows in general, let alone widely canvass links to this commercial, ad-laden site. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

To AfD or not-to-AfD, that is the question

Pardon my PUNishing title. I'd like to run this by you editors. I'm trying to figure out what to do with these COI/UPE/CITESPAM articles. There is a now-blocked editor who created a lot of articles based on his own research and cited to his own published works. He's an academic with lots of co-authored papers. I offer for an example just a subset of his production with just these 7 articles, written exclusively by him (and sometimes tweaked by his sock), illustrated liberally with his own photographs and drawings, uploaded himself to wikimedia. The reference section is usually a minimum of 50% of his own authored works, the others are usually papers by his peers and their papers cite back to him. Many of the author names were hidden behind "and colleagues". The first of these 7 articles I updated the citations to show that 10 of the 20 citations are his own works. Of the other citations which offer an online link, I think all but 2 cite back to him in those papers.

He then wikilinks these articles into every village, town, district, camp, mountain, lake, forest, etc. that these soils or geologic formations span across (or under).

Anyway, it's a pretty esoteric subject, written by a geologist, and probably interesting to someone who likes soils and rocks and things. But I'm not sure reproducing his published research work into Wikipedia is what is appropriate for the encyclopedia. But I can't grip on what policy should apply, what should we do with these articles, etc.

(This isn't the only area he CITESPAMmed to his own works, but it suffices to be used as an example for my question of what do we do about it now. All of the articles relate to Ethiopia's Tigray Region.)

You see, we may have stopped the spammer in his tracks, but what do we do now about his footprints? And unlike the average spammer who is pointing to some online trash, this one has cited to published works.

Any suggestions, please? Any tips to help me view this situation more clearly? Platonk (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd lean toward a single AfD covering all of them as WP:OR. OhNoitsJamie Talk 12:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:OR states The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Since these articles have quite a list of seemingly RSes supporting the content, then how could it be OR in the Wikipedia sense? I understand how it can be used in the English common usage sense (to mean that an author has put his own research into Wikipedia), but I cannot imagine it would stand up to an AfD under the banner of "OR". Platonk (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Being spammed across various sport-related articles. Filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mariala10. Can this be blacklisted? Pahunkat (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.