Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2015 Archive May 1

Link spam
--AndrewNJ (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Resolved. Reverted edits, posted warning on user TP. Thanks for the report! -- Mysterious Gopher (talk), 19:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about amazon.com
What do Amazon affiliate links look like? I can't seem to figure out which parts of the amazon links are necessary and if/where the affiliate code may be included. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Affiliate links have a tag parameter. MER-C 12:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

wilsonsconsultancy.com

 * Spammers

Blocked 212.200.65.112/28 for 10 days. MER-C 11:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hosgetah
GermanJoe (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Spamming links to streaming sites in radio-related articles (see contribs, almost all of them). Latest site is now globally blacklisted. I just left a level-3 warning and notification, but early warnings in 2011 about EL-usage have been completely ignored. GermanJoe (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeffed. Thanks for the report. MER-C 06:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

grabhouse.com
Clickspam articles like this have been used here as "references", while the main grabhouse.com page is about ...real estate?? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Law School Transparency
Over the last two months a large number of edits have been made to dozens, possibly hundreds of articles about law schools. Almost all the edits follow the exact same format and appear to originate from a single commercial organization "Law School Transparency", inserting links to its website into specific law school articles. LST seeks to monetize data that is available for free elsewhere, and often introduces errors into the data in the process. It also serves as a defacto marketing platform, for Spivey Consulting, where two LST leaders, Kyle McEntee and Mike Spivey, work.

There are slight variations in the edits for some law schools--for example, some note the overall employment rate for law students and not just the "Full Time JD required not solo" category invented by LST. The more favorable edits appear to be for law schools who have paid LST for its services or otherwise provided financial support to the organization.

Someone (apparently from LST) has inserted LST metrics into most law school's websites without any prior discussion of whether or not LST is a reliable source of information.

Undisclosed Paid Editing and off-Wiki Coordination
Hundreds of Law School Websites have been the target of undisclosed paid editing, coordinated off-Wiki.. On July 9, 2014, on the message board top-law-school.com, a user going by the name of BRUT (who had been a user since 2011 and has posted on top-law-schools.com more than 270 times; top-law-schools registration required to see BRUT's past posts) declared the completion of a project offering a bounty to those who would insert links to Law School Transparency's website (entry into a raffle with the potential win of $10) into the Wikipedia page of ABA accredited law schools. This was a coordinated effort, with individuals stating which website they edited, and BRUT keeping track to avoid duplication of effort. This conflict of interest was not disclosed on Wikipedia when the edits were made. This violates Wikipedia's paid editing policies and policies against off-wiki coordination.

Someone from Law School transparency posted specifically requesting a link to LST's website and thanking for the effort, noting that the links were helping drive traffic to LST's website. This same person from LST disclosed that they were editing some of the law school websites themselves.

It's unclear how many Wikipedia editors were compromised, but there are 13 pages of posts on the top-law-schools.com thread announcing the raffle. In the course of discussion, many of the individuals posting promised to monitor the law school websites and revert any changes and to defend LST, with individuals from LST egging them on.

Many of the editors posting here and on reliable sources noticeboard to defend LST may have been compromised by payments from LST, Spivey Cosulting, or affiliated individuals or organizations. I would request that everyone defending LST as a reliable source disclose or not a spammer whether or not they have any connection whatsoever to Spivey, LST, top-law-schools.com, or related individuals or entities.

The full text from the first page of the top-law-schools.com thread is provided below (please excuse errors in formatting).

I am going to cross-post to reliable source noticeboard.Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

((redacted: copypaste from a forum thread, possibly copyright violation))

Extortion
LST accuses law schools of presenting misleading data and other misdeeds, and demands payment from law schools to certify that their employment information is accurate. Critics have compared this practice to extortion.

Factual Errors
LST's data clearinghouse contains numerous errors.

Lack of Transparency about Funding Sources
LST is not transparent about its funding sources or uses of funds, and apparently did not file paperwork with the Internal Revenue Service that is required for its donors to receive a tax deduction until after this omission was pointed out by a law professor. At that point, LST disclosed the bare minimum legally required rather than more comprehensive disclosures that are considered best practice. The organization appears to be funded in part by individuals providing career placement services to former law students, and to operate by scaring them into thinking they won't be able to find a job without such services.

Additional evidence of spamming by Spivey Consulting
Spammy messages about Spivey consulting started appearing on Top-Law-Schools.com about the same time as all of the Wikipedia edits to Law School Transparency

Forum shopping

 * Forum shopping. Unemployed, an SPA created a couple of days ago (who managed to make 279 edits in that time), has been energetically forum shopping this to multiple noticeboards.  See, for example, the discussion on the RSN here. And the dismissal of his charge for forum shopping on yet another noticeboard that it points to ("This looks like retaliatory [[WP:FORUMSHOP|forum shopping] because consensus didn't go your way at all despite your refusal to accept that.")]. With the dismissing editor noting: "rm malformed forum shop". Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

==This is not forum shopping, but rather a seperate issue. Another poster at the Reliable Source Noticeboard responded to my post there by stating that the large number of entries from and about Law School Transparency (which is closely connected to Spivey Consulting) suggested that LST was spammy and the IP should be banned. I am responding to that suggestion by entering a notice here. Epeefleche has responded with extreme incivility and dishonesty in the other discussion board, engaged in retaliatory edits of wikipedia pages for sources that suggested that Law School Transparency was not a reliable source, and removed notices of problems with tabloid blog sources that he liked before citing to them. He edited the Wikipedia page for one source, Brian Leiter, and a related page more than 20 times in the space of 3 days. Take a look at Epeefleche's edit history. His inappropriate conduct and overly emotional defense of LST (and attacks on anyone critical of LST) are transparent.Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

rizztourandtravels.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 12:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

bizywizy.com
Free Business Listing Site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.203.193.153 (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, IP. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

thefamouspeople.com -- is it spam?

 * http://thefamouspeople.com

I'm pretty sure it's not a reliable source, but is it spam? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Needs to be removed as an unreliable source in BLPs, but are you seeing the same or similar accounts spamming it? --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

cashsolv.co.uk
— Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

foreclosuresearch.ca

 * link


 * accounts

Multiple single purpose accounts adding link into multiple articles - attempting to disguise the linkspam as a ref. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

homeloansforall.com

 * links


 * accounts

Repeated addition of owner's site into article despite warning (self-confessed as to content he wrote himself, see : "I updated the section with current info and cited my site since I am the original author of it."), and making misleading arguments for the change. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

movieclickz.com -- is it spam?
The link has been added to several articles, but it doesn't look like a reliable source to me, nor a mention-worthy review site. Or is it? There's currently an article about it at Movie clickz but I've put a speedy tag on it-- oh nevermind it's gone. — Jeraphine (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet another movie site. Almost certainly an inappropriate external link from a quick review. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's used as a reference so I'd have to go and leave a cn tag behind when I remove the links, like here. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's spamming against a coi.
 * If it is a CRYSTAL, SOAP, or similar problem not verified with another source, consider just removing it. --Ronz (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the rest. I found one addition added in good faith, another that was questionable. The rest were spam. --Ronz (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Great work, thanks! — Jeraphine (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ol Chiki alphabet
.
 * likely IP of blocked, spamming links in article Ol Chiki alphabet (see history) to advertise their site
 * Persistent spammer, IP and URL-scheme should be blocked. GermanJoe (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)