Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

thegenealogist.co.uk

Canvassing by single-purpose account since 2013. If blacklisted, can be replaced by links from whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com, which is an official licensee of the show. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Possible spam pattern to watch

See:

They targeted an article ([1]) in the "In the news" section of the Main Page, and made all the text of the lede section link to their site. They have also been persistent and have reinstated the link several times even after being undone.

I was wondering if this was a one-off thing or not, so I checked some other articles linked on the front page. Lo and behold, another edit in the exact same pattern on a high-visibility article: [2]

I don't know if the site needs to be specifically blacklisted, or maybe there is some way of preventing what they did (making all the text a link), but at least it's something to be noted. 70.175.192.217 (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Also on the featured article (already since protected). 70.175.192.217 (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@70.175.192.217: Already here: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#thearticle.online. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

URL spam of education business

There has been spam over at least the past week linking to www.schoolconnectonline.com, an India-based educational website by some IPs: 2409:4043:282:80DE:7C7D:CA38:1520:FA6, 2409:4043:282:80DE:11E:AF6C:4361:202F. The editor creates external links next to mentions of a science olympiad (high-level academic competition for high schoolers). In one edit, the person has replaced a right URL in a citation. This website seems to have zero value as a reliable source, so I request for it to be blocked. 73.92.124.45 (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Right now, I have searched the entire wiki and confirm that all links to that website have been removed. 73.92.124.45 (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Conflict interest

Management needs tO be Changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:8086:1200:CD28:E399:64D5:2A78 (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree the lack of action against a prominent and powerful editor(as seen in the above sction) is not okay Cookiemonstericecream (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I have zero opinion on this topic, but I did read this the other day: WP:Unblockables. Platonk (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I already pay monthly please give me a button to skip ad

As per title. I contribute a small amount every month. The ad asking for donations does not have an option to say that?!

Please make it so. Sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.168.29.157 (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Relief! It seems the donation drive has ended. Platonk (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Twitter Link

Curbon7 is linking his twitter account on his personal page witch based on my interpenetration of the rules is against Wikipedia policyCookiemonstericecream (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Cookiemonstericecream, first of all, that's not my Twitter, it's a link to a thread of me being mocked on Twitter for my Wikipedia userpage. Second of all, this is likely a retribution post, as I rejected one of OP's drafts. Curbon7 (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry you believe that this report is retribution. It is not. However that site is about you and has your clear endorsement. this report is based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam#Standards Cookiemonstericecream (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay, now I have an opinion. (1) WP:WikiProject Spam#Standards mentions "article space", not WP:User space. (2) Prohibitions against using Twitter (WP:TWITTER, WP:TWITTERREF, WP:TWITTER-EL) are all in reference to not using such links for sources in WP:MAINSPACE, not user space. (3) WP:USERPAGE grants an editor quite a bit of leeway. (4) That Twitter link doesn't link to Curbon7's Twitter account, so it doesn't even fall under WP:PROMOTION. Result: No violation, IMNSHO. Platonk (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

programminginsider.com

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.

  1. Soil in Kilte Awula'ilo
  2. Soil in Atsbi Wenberta
  3. Soil in Dogu'a Tembien
  4. Soil in Inderta
  5. Soil in Tanqwa Abergele
  6. Soil in Sa'isi Tsa'ida Imba
  7. Soil in Kola Tembien

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)

fullmatchesreplayhighlights.com

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

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2021_Archive_Dec

Leave a Reply