Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2017 Archive Sep 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wannaparty111

Wannaparty111 (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): User is doing nothing apart from creating articles advertising a party goods store, such as Party supplies online, Online party supplies india, and Sweet 16 Party Supplies. Bakilas (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Already blocked. MER-C 02:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

babepedia.com

Partial list
Spamming from a dynamic ip. There's been some spamming prior to June, most cleaned up by @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:, but the spamming has escalated considerably since. Suggest giving to XLinkBot. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Two more. Blacklist? --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


Another --Ronz (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
This site has been nominated for global blacklisting. MER-C 03:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Two more. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

"Futility Closet Podcast".

I don't know if this is the right place for this sort of report, but it seems reasonably obvious that this mass addition of reference links serves only to promote the podcast.

Lantzy (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) seems to be adding In Pop Culture links to Futility Closet to dozens of articles. There doesn't seem to be any notability or signifigance to any of the links beyond the fact that the podcast did mention those topics. ("In Pop Culture" sections are supposed to help us understand the topic's cultural impact and/or help us understand its notability. Being mentioned in a barely notable podcast does neither.)

I'd go through and remove them myself, but I'm always nervous doing multiple reverts across multiple articles, so I'd rather defer to a more experienced editor. ApLundell (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I see this as necessary de-orphaning and wikibuilding. Without creating links of this sort, either under the "popular culture" heading or somewhere else, an article like Futility Closet is likely to remain poorly integrated, and that is to nobody's benefit. It seemed to me that the most natural way to integrate the page was to create brief, unobtrusive links at the various subject matter articles, given that someone reading an article on topic X might be interested in further information on that topic. If there's a consensus that I've been overlinking or giving undue weight, I'd be happy to go back and remove some of these links. But I don't think it's fair to characterize these edits as wanton promotionalism or spamming. LANTZYTALK 17:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
What is concerning is that the podcasts, to varying degrees, plagiarise the Wikipedia articles, with no attribution or acknowledgement. I do not see why Wikipedia should be publicising a site that does this. Have you actually compared a selection of these podcasts with the Wikipedia articles concerned, paying special attention to the dates of each?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
This looks like simple WP:REFSPAM. Without independent sources, it looks like advertising with no demonstrated due weight. --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
There are two issues here: copyright violations by Futility Closet, and the use of linkspam. They should be considered separately. Maproom (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Copyrights are worth discussing here per WP:COPYVIOEL.
The use of links to Futility Closet within Futility Closet and List of Futility Closet Podcast episodes is problematic. --Ronz (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Cosmetics, modular buildings, and oscilloscopes

...oh my!

Links from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monicanaylor repeatedly added over the last few weeks:

I'm mainly mentioning this here because I noticed one user who was adding this who was not listed in the CU for this farm, but the spam was identical:

Perhaps COIBot will find something.

Elf Cosmetics is known enough that it might've been added occasionally over the years in good faith. I dunno about the rest, but they look like corporate spam. Grayfell (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: the reports are there .. mostly 'redlinked editors' (editors without a userpage). Guess this has not, or very little long ago been used by 'regulars'. I would consider to revert all of the spammers (possibly use CU to find which in the reports are, most are suspect), and see what is left over... --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
They're all reverted. A couple more domains:
Blocked and blacklisted. MER-C 11:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

armenian-lawyer.com

armenian-lawyer.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 - at first they tried to bluntly add it to articles but now it's added as a reference to dozens of articles. Either way this is not a primary source for any info on Armenian visa policy and it is added for link spam purposes. All additions can be found here - [1] --Twofortnights (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Twofortnights: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but what does it change? The content is still in articles.--Twofortnights (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Twoforthnights: Sorry, I thought you already reverted this. I have rolled most back, the rest I cleared now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!--Twofortnights (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Various Indian spam sites

Indian charity site recently spammed in articles about vaguely related social topics:

Older spamming case, but blocked as malicious attack page via Firefox:

Another charity spammer, also spamming vaguely related social topics:

Private website to promote tourism and "awareness" for this Indian region (incl. a few unreliable good-faith additions):

Both charity spammers have several warnings about previous incidents on various IPs. All cases were spammed in atleast 10-20 articles each - all cleaned up now. GermanJoe (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Blacklisted muskanforall.com. I've deferred the others because they show no recent activity, prod me if they pop up again. MER-C 06:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Agree with the other three cases - not a pressing issue for now, I'll keep an eye on possible future issues. GermanJoe (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

sebastianlockwood.org

I only encountered two live instances for now, which were now removed. —PaleoNeonate – 22:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

realtimenews.info

This is a spammy looking site that's being added as refspam check:

The IP has also added one link to burmachannel.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 which looks like a similarly spammy site. SmartSE (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

mensreviewzone.com

User already blocked for reflink spam but some more instances of the site in article space, would be nice to detect socks and add to a blacklist if necessary. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Good catch. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Can you please report the accounts to WP:SPI, I see many accounts with oneliner, 'canned' userpages and similar behaviour (please add the LinkSummary there for tracking purposes). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Juko534 filed with the users from the COIBot report (I hope that was correct). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Adding psurg.com above (only one existing instance in articles right now I think). —PaleoNeonate – 07:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Isn't the remaining instance a copyvio? I looked for a proper archived copy for the National Post article, but couldn't find an archive for the publisher. --Ronz (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
It's indeed unclear if the article is an actual copy and under what terms... —PaleoNeonate – 02:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
It might be unrelated. I've seen throwaway spam accounts add other non-spam references, sometimes in the same edit, in order to disguise the spamming. MER-C 06:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

rupeenomics.com

Spammers

Blocked. MER-C 12:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

One more. --Ronz (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Blacklisted, thanks. MER-C 06:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Babepedia.com - continuing

Spamming continues.I doubt I'll create a Wikimedia account just for this, but will request it be blacklisted when I get the time if someone doesn't get to it first. --Ronz (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ronz: Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

traininfo.in

Spammers

MER-C 08:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Two more --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Suspect or acceptable?

I noticed that various Nature journal article links were changed to point at this site instead (example). The site appears to be academic, although I wonder if this is suspect or acceptable, input welcome. Thank you, —PaleoNeonate – 16:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Related: leedsunilibrary.wordpress.com/2017/07/14/wikipedia-information-literacy-and-open-access/ —PaleoNeonate – 17:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I notified the editor. Looks like he's trying to substitute references with open access ones. I have no opinion yet on the merits of this approach, other than it needs examination and discussion. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes I've changed links to legitimate open access version (doi still points to version of record). Surely in spirit of Wikipedia that links are to publicly accessible versions rather than paywalled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.112.251 (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Motivated by this really https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.112.251 (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I've added a comment to the blog post linked above that will hopefully reassure this is legitimate - https://leedsunilibrary.wordpress.com/2017/07/14/wikipedia-information-literacy-and-open-access/comment-page-1/#comment-55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OAnick (talk • contribs) 10:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Although it may not be paywalled I still could only access an abstract of the article there personally (with even more visible on the Nature journal site; maybe a scripting issue). Other potential issues would be if those articles can be redistributed and if the site is dedicated enough for WP to start massively linking there (that it will not become an ad gateway, etc). I'm not sure where is the best place for such discussion, WP:OPENACCESS perhaps. And I'm sorry to be ignorant about the initiative until now, please disregard this report if it's misplaced; I think that access to sources is important and that paywalls are indeed an obstacle to encyclopedia development. —PaleoNeonate – 16:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You can get the full text from the White Rose Repository - http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/112179/ (link on the right hand side). It's also available from the repository at University College London - http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1536298/. Can you explain what you mean by 'ad gateway'? University based repositories are unlikely to host adverts (though some of the other 'open access' platforms like ResearchGate or Academia.edu may do so!)— Preceding unsigned comment added by OAnick (talk • contribs) 13:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

This last discovery site had the direct pdf link very visible (and downloadable). For whiterose it is collapsed using CSS and requires scripts to unroll (disabling WRRO_v1.css or viewing the page source however allow to also see the direct pdf links, which then work). As for ad gateways, these indeed don't appear to be. I also now understand how the copyright/licensing works in these openaccess cases. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I am going to assume that OANick and the IP the same person... Some thoughts....
First, OANick has made it clear that they are connected to the White Rose initiative by noting that they updated the blog there
Second, I don't see where OANick got consensus anywhere before starting to make these widespread changes adding the URL to the repository. It does ~look like~ spamming and bringing it up here was entirely appropriate. Generally in WP before you start making some specific systematic change, you should get consensus, and if you don't do that, you can expect to be queried.
Third, this is not the first conflicted editor who has gone through WP systematically adding links to their own OA repository. We had a long conversation with the founders of ISUM at WT:MED here, who were doing the same thing.
Finally, OANick should a) stop doing this for now, and b) open a discussion someplace and ask for consensus to add links to WhiteRose throughout WP. That discussion can be held at any relevant board but notifications should be posted at other relevant boards so that interested members of the community can weigh in. If there is consensus for this, it might even be possible to have a bot to do this.
The discussion should probably note that the White Rose people say here that White Rose Research Online will track views and downloads, so you can see how your research is being used. - the "you" there is "people who upload papers". Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

traincaster.com

More than ten years of persistently spamming beginning with this in 2007. Please see User talk:50.195.17.118#September 2017 where I have declined an unblock because the spammer was IP socking and evading so they could continue to spam with an IPv6 range. They have ignored warnings and offered enough IDHT arguments.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

redbridgefinance.co.uk

Spammers

MER-C 12:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Persistent. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Lyfboat

lyfboat.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 -- links added by the user having the same name as the spam link.--Twofortnights (talk) 06:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Spammers
@Twofortnights: You missed a handful of accounts, refspam. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 06:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Lyfboat11 felt the need to blank this report. I've blocked both username violations in the report. MER-C 09:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like more cleanup is needed, right? I don't see how it could be a reliable source or appropriate external link, and I'm seeing what's apparently spamming from ips. --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The medical articles with the links are spam magnets and need cleanup (Medanta,Max Super Speciality Hospital, Saket, Pradeep Chowbey) --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Looks like unrelated SOAP, with a likely COI. --Ronz (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

cattree.uk

Spam pages
Sites spammed
Spammers

Blacklisted. MER-C 07:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

scaffoldingrentalandsales.com

links

URL being added to multiple articles. Actual pages used are blog-like entries that act as infomercial type pages, providing facts up-front then proceeding to promote the commercial products, catalogs, etc. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Editor specializing in "spam lite"

I have just discovered a single-purpose editor,MattSebastian88, who appears to be a spammer for hire. They exposed themself by placing a Craigslist ad for a $5 gait belt as a ref in the Gait belt article, for which I just warned them. Their history is all about inserting links and promotional statements, previously in a very subtle, stealthy way. Their WP account activity started on 5 September 2017. I think they may work out of a "spam center" in India. I assume they may have sockpuppets, but haven't found any yet.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Quisqualis My edits are largely about biology, medicine and medicinal devices, and companies related to this niche, because, this is my favorite niche, and nothing much. That craiglist link was an honest mistake( I was just reading the content on that link, and accidently used that as the reference). Could you please point out the areas in my edits that you felt the tone is not right( meaning the content you felt were promotional)? All the content I have added to different pages so far, are taken from the articles that are on Google(again, still learning) My edits aren't subtle, as one of the moderators has gone through most of my edits and shared his opinions with me(my talk page) I am new here, and I am learning how things work here. I want to be very clear that I am not spamming this site. And, sockpuppets?MattSebastian88 (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It is striking how most if not all edits appear to promote a particular product or technique but add little to the topic, always adding a reference including a link, often to some primary source or PR site... I would personally be very bored if I only payed attention to those details among search results... But pinging Jytdog who has more experience and already previously conversed with you. Everyone must start somewhere and it's possible that an improvement can be perceived. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The explanation that a Craigslist ad was inadvertently use as a ref is preposterous, and implies that you are using a macro or bot to automate your refs, unusual behaviour for a "new user" to say the least. You are new account, "MattSebastian88", but seem to be an employee of a PR promoter, in my estimation. I remain entirely unconvinced by your innocence act.--75.164.139.100 (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
If anyone can find a single edit from MattSebastian88 that doesn't have such problems, please identify it. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
This one perhaps? I mean, it's a primary source, but it's not obviously promotional. --tronvillain (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
A press release is promotional. If that's the best edit, then I think a block is probably the best way to go, though the evidence is a bit slim. --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • MattSebastian89's edits are alarmingly promotional and badly sourced; the edits consistently violate the WP:PROMO policy and WP:RS guideline.
Why? It is hard to tell if this is intentionally spamming or someone who a) actually has no conception of the different kinds of content one finds "on Google" and b) who thinks of the world in terms of products that you find described "on Google". I tried to explain sourcing quickly and they wrote here on Sept 21 "I understand" but there is no difference in the edits before and after that discussion - just more of the same product-oriented badly sourced content.
MattSebastian89 regardless of your motivations, you need to be "very clear" that you are "spamming this site". If you don't get more serious about understanding WP:RS and what is and is not encyclopedic content you are heading for an indefinite block - you are violating the WP:PROMO policy and WP:RS guideline. It is really up to you to learn the policies and guidelines and you should seek help and training before you edit more. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I think SPI is a good idea. --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
filed. —PaleoNeonate – 23:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I mistyped the username when filing it but a checkuser was still done on the actual name. More details there for the results. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2017_Archive_Sep_1&oldid=1137364017"