Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive Oct 1

Possible scamming
&mdash; User is currently soliciting "donations" on user page via an email address. DK  qwerty    22:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Not spam per se, but closest appropriate board in my opinion. Please direct me elsewhere if needed.

Email Address is not associated with anything "donating" related. Remarks are to consider donations to a noble cause, via their website. Twillisjr (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This doesn't really fit this board, although I can understand why you brought it here.
 * For disputed user page content, User_page suggests first discussing it on the user's own talk page. If agreement on the nature of the material cannot be reached and resolved, then if no speedy deletion criterion applies, the next step would be taking it to Miscellany for deletion for community discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Gottcha. Will do in future if required. Happy editing.    DK   qwerty    00:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

&mdash; User clarified wordage. DK  qwerty    00:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

color-book.org

 * links
 * • https links
 * accounts
 * accounts


 * Blocked Robert Von Higgs for spamming after last morning; the two 89.* addresses were both active today, 62.* dates back to last year. IPs geolocate to the region where the site's domain is registered. If any spamming continues, will add to blacklist. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Spam link
The following page looks like spam, it has a very brief description of its content and a link to a parked domain.

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A1logo_de_moda

--Dodajob (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the English Wikipedia; you're reporting something on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Other than being part of the same project, the Wikis are operated independently of each other. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

BridgewayAcademy1 spam
His only edit is to spam a link in the homeschooling article, erasing all other content from that article, replacing it with the commercial.  D r e a m Focus  17:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is blockable on multiple levels, for the spamming, blanking, promotion, and conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

User constantly promoting their own band at List_of_indie_rock_musicians
List_of_indie_rock_musicians has clear inclusion criteria: this large template advising users that bands need a sourced Wikipedia article before being added. Despite that, User:Wladek_Sheen, who appears to be the lead vocalist in a group called all tomorrow's parties, has constantly been adding a Last.fm link to their band, which lacks a Wiki article. First under their main account and lately using ips. I've reverted them and left a message on their talk page but they persist in readding their band both to that page and to List_of_bands_with_more_than_one_lead_vocalist. Can anyone help or advise? Valenciano (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Spam on Talk pages
I'm new to this. What's the best thing to do about obvious spam on articles' Talk pages? Should I report it in exactly the same way as spam in an article? For instance, Talk:Data_quality_control. Zinios (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove, blank or revert as appropriate, then deal with the user in the usual manner. MER-C 11:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had a go at it, hope this was right. Zinios (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Persistant linkspam by landmark lofts
The page for 'Loft conversion' is being persistantly link spammed by a commerical company 'landmark lofts'. They have made numerous edits to include links to their commercial website. Several editors have removed their edits but they still persist. Their latest edit still needs to be undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.176.207.60 (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've notified that their username is inappropriate. Their editing violates WP:SOAP and WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

That was fast editing Ronz, thanks, hopefully they will get the message and stop the linkspam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.176.207.60 (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Danmekis

 * This appears to be a SPA, mainly adding images to Opal - five currently in the article, including the infobox. This appears to be a COI as the user operates a business selling opals, and his userpage has links to both his business and to a GooglePlus account which showcases items for sale. One of these is of an item which the user has just used to replace the infobox image. (I've reverted this to the previous image, but this also happens to be another of his images.) Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am an Opal photographer, collector, and cutter. I have taken all of the photos I have posted, and have added them to add visual ::examples of different attributes to Opal, which the page was previously lacking.  I do not understand why adding a reference to my work on ::a photograph that I have produced is any different from people citing books, journals, websites etc.  It would take a user multiple clicks ::to make their way to one of my sites, which provide further information.  I will remove the reference in WikiCommons if need be, but do not agree with Bahudhara's assessment.  Thank you for your consideration. Danmekis (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply: The links on your userpage (now placed at the very bottom of the page) go directly to your commercial website, which advertises your work at thousands of dollars per piece. In your latest addition to your userpage, you also describe yourself as having been a dealer "for many years". You therefore have a direct personal financial interest in trying to use Wikipedia for advertising - see WP:NOTADVERTISING, and that is where your conflict of interest arises. It is not the same as WP editors citing books, journals, etc. - we have no financial interest, the core of this project is based on altruism. Bahudhara (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like he's headed for a block given how he turned his user page into a nice ad for himself after participating in the discussion here and having a coi notice placed on his talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

short-biography.com

 * Accounts:
 * A blog being spammed by related ip's. It's not clear that the accounts are related to the ip's, but they appear related to each other. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Has anything happened since Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive May 1? MER-C 10:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Obviously there wasn't anything done about the short-biography.com link. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A blog being spammed by related ip's. It's not clear that the accounts are related to the ip's, but they appear related to each other. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Has anything happened since Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive May 1? MER-C 10:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Obviously there wasn't anything done about the short-biography.com link. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A blog being spammed by related ip's. It's not clear that the accounts are related to the ip's, but they appear related to each other. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Has anything happened since Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive May 1? MER-C 10:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Obviously there wasn't anything done about the short-biography.com link. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A blog being spammed by related ip's. It's not clear that the accounts are related to the ip's, but they appear related to each other. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Has anything happened since Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive May 1? MER-C 10:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Obviously there wasn't anything done about the short-biography.com link. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A blog being spammed by related ip's. It's not clear that the accounts are related to the ip's, but they appear related to each other. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Has anything happened since Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive May 1? MER-C 10:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Obviously there wasn't anything done about the short-biography.com link. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A blog being spammed by related ip's. It's not clear that the accounts are related to the ip's, but they appear related to each other. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Has anything happened since Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive May 1? MER-C 10:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Obviously there wasn't anything done about the short-biography.com link. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A blog being spammed by related ip's. It's not clear that the accounts are related to the ip's, but they appear related to each other. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Has anything happened since Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive May 1? MER-C 10:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Obviously there wasn't anything done about the short-biography.com link. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A blog being spammed by related ip's. It's not clear that the accounts are related to the ip's, but they appear related to each other. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Has anything happened since Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive May 1? MER-C 10:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Obviously there wasn't anything done about the short-biography.com link. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A blog being spammed by related ip's. It's not clear that the accounts are related to the ip's, but they appear related to each other. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Has anything happened since Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive May 1? MER-C 10:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Obviously there wasn't anything done about the short-biography.com link. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A blog being spammed by related ip's. It's not clear that the accounts are related to the ip's, but they appear related to each other. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Has anything happened since Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive May 1? MER-C 10:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Obviously there wasn't anything done about the short-biography.com link. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A blog being spammed by related ip's. It's not clear that the accounts are related to the ip's, but they appear related to each other. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Has anything happened since Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive May 1? MER-C 10:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Obviously there wasn't anything done about the short-biography.com link. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Has anything happened since Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive May 1? MER-C 10:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Obviously there wasn't anything done about the short-biography.com link. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

JennyK07 and getinfo.co.in

 * - contributions to articles consist of adding four links to getinfo.co.in
 * . &mdash; rybec   18:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

-SFK2 (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See also:

There's more to this:
 * Past spam report
 * Past spam report

They're trying to use getinfo.co.in and vt802.us to get around the blacklisting of timesofbook.com. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

indianboxofficeonline.com and ibodatabase.com


The user is almost exclusively concerned with cite-spamming the above two websites (and possibly others also under his control). According to the WHOIS information for the domains, and to the "About us" sections of the websites, the two websites are operated by someone whose name matches the Wikipedia user name. The user has been repeatedly warned about spamming (and other disruptive editing) but his only response has been to blank the warnings and continue the spamming.

(I've unarchived this report as it still needs actioning. Is there an automated tool which can remove the existing spam links?) Psychonaut (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The editor definitely has a conflict of interest and has not only been spamming his work, he's been removing competitor's work as well. I recommend a block. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support for block, the user cannot stand other than this site. He claims him to be a reviewer for their site.  Sohambanerjee1998  17:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support block, now that you're proposed it. I don't see any productive contributions. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm unable to access indianboxofficeonline.com. It appears it is the old domain name for ibodatabase.com. Can someone confirm.

Looks like a group blog. Not sure why it would belong in any article. --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the site recently went down, though the domain is still registered, and there are still lots of links to it from Wikipedia. I included it in the report for these reasons and to demonstrate that the same person is operating both domains and the spam campaign. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get around to removing all the links when I have more time, if someone doesn't get to them first. --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can anyone get to cleaning up this? --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * indianboxofficeonline.com has been cleaned up. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)



Cleanup completed. Should we blacklist? --Ronz (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think blacklisting would be a good idea.  I don't see any legitimate use for these sites as reliable sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 05:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

thomsonreuters.com
From just glancing at the links, it doesn't look good. Maybe there's no spamming, but definitely a great deal of inappropriate links and references. Can someone look? --Ronz (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not too worried about the appearances at AFC. Looks like it comes down to a few poorly-formed articles. Was there something special that you were concerned by? LeadSongDog come howl!  05:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look!
 * I noticed the many "products/" links and the like. I'm concerned that editing like this might be part of larger spamming. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that I've had a chance to look, it looks like a very low percentage of the links are inappropriate and I'm not seeing any obvious spamming. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Verifiedseo - The user name says it all
Spam edit: Chris Greenman: Difference between revisions --Bamyers99 (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Escortshongkong
--greenrd (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reported the user to WP:UAA. -SFK2 (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)