Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2017 Archive Apr 1

economicsociology.org
WP:CITESPAM (cleaned up). The website's author, Oleg Komlik, posts articles on his personal website where he is also "editor-in-chief". Shortly afterwards - often on the same day -, various links and mentions referring to these articles pop up at Wikipedia. Over 30 cases of clear cite spam. GermanJoe (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * various single-usage IPs
 * various single-usage IPs


 * Recently recurring spam, which neatly summarizes the promotional intent here (with highly misleading numbers and no independent sources). Of course acknowledged academic works from this author in reliable reviewed publications could be used, but academics and their self-published Wordpress blogs are not exempt from our anti-spamming and anti-promotion policies. GermanJoe (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 06:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

unrelated reference link
The page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vacuum_arc_remelting appears to have spam. Reference 4, to pool vacs, is completely unrelated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberthin (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for spotting that - I've removed it and will check if whoever added it made any similar additions. Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

icon change
(copied from my talkpage): Hello, you reverted my flag edit on WikiProject Spam. I would like to explain why I chose that and not the shutdown button. The flag is used almost everywhere as a method to report something. This is my argument for why we should use the flag. Ups and Downs 1234 (Talk to me) (My Contribs) 03:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll copy this discussion to the talkpage of the page in question. Can you provide me examples of where that is the case?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Orangecones


Link spam; adding links to "autooverload.com", "saladandgo.com", "carophile.org" and other non-reliable sources. At least the last 20 edits by this editor consist of adding unnecessary links. John Nagle (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * can you please list all their sources here, let's get LinkReports from COIBot and see how to proceed (likely: blackist). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone put in "LinkSummary" templates above to do that. (I fixed the spelling of "autooverload"). "carophile.com" has clear linkspam behavior, but the other two have few hits. "carophile.com" is a site which consists almost entirely of lists of the form "10 hottest selling cars in the US". Blacklisting "carophile.com" would probably be sufficient. John Nagle (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I put them there, it gives us access to a lot of tools and searches, and to the the User:COIBot linkreports. Moreover, it shows us if someone already found this earlier.
 * You were talking about 'other non-reliable sources', the behaviour of the editor certainly looks spammy (though they may have stopped after the last discussion). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it's rather blatant advertising. See . ("Product is available at (company name, address, phone, URL, hours of business").) This editor mostly adds links, most of which are on the spammy side and some of which are obviously spam. It's not all spam for the same site, though; it's as if they have a task list. What to do? Would Orangecones like to comment? John Nagle (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Rou albert
-- John123521  ( Talk - Contib. ) RA  03:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Created Royal Oxford University which is advert content.-- John123521  ( Talk - Contib. ) RA  03:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Asking to be taken off your spam list


Back in 2011, FoodFacts.com was blocked from Wikipedia. An employee of ours, who is no longer with FoodFacts.com (and hasn’t been since the instance occurred) was actively editing other Wikipedia pages with information from FoodFacts.com. These inappropriate actions caused our URL, www.foodfacts.com to be blocked from Wikipedia.

On the advice and recommendation of of the employee who originally took inappropriate action with Wikipedia, I sent an email to your editors attempting to force the unblocking of our URL. Unfortunately at the time, I did not have any understanding of the Wikipedia mission or your procedures. Because of this, our URL was deemed as spam and has remained blacklisted.

Since that time, FoodFacts.com has grown enormously. Our mission, vision and goals align quite well with the Wikipedia mission of providing free and valuable information for our visitors. Our staff includes highly experienced, committed web professionals with impeccable integrity.

The site’s following has grown to include numerous dieticians and nutritionists who have attempted to cite FoodFacts.com on Wikipedia and cannot do so. The information our site provides is quite appropriate to the context of their efforts and would add credibility and respectability to their content.

So I am asking Wikipedia editors again, if we can be considered for removal from the blacklist. I can assure Wikipedia, that if given another chance, FoodFacts.com will be a responsible member of the Wikipedia community and will abide by any and all Wikipedia rules.

Thank you for your consideration. I hopefully await your response.

Stan4foodfacts (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Stan Rak


 * I will let a Wikipedia administrator answer this one in full, but in the meantime I suggest reading WP:COI, and WP:NOTADVERTISING. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the site would be considered unreliable and self-published. Some of the information on the site is based upon fringe theories, falls within Wikipedia's guidelines for medical information, or is promotional. I don't see why it would be used in a Wikipedia article. --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that you find time to improve Wikipedia, writing content. If that content needs the reference to a document on foodfacts.com, you request an addition to our whitelist of that specific document on foodfacts.com, for the page where it is needed. The request will then be discussed and evaluated. Hence, and. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Osothecrew
Hi, they are adding a spam link to multiple articles in the infoboxes Atlantic306 (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The user in question has since been blocked for spam links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlin8 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

netai.net and netne.net

 * links
 * being added to


 * being added to


 * accounts

Series of socks edit warring over addition of spam URL, with misleading link names showing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, this nonsense was already under way:




 * where The Boss Baby and The Circle (2017 film) were semi-protected for three days and a bunch of stuff blacklisted. MER-C 02:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As for the two domains netne.net and netai.net, they're a free webhost. MER-C 02:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No harm in revertlisting these. I see too much regular use that blacklisting may be somewhat disruptive.   to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

mxbpointcodes (and 'related'?)
I ran into:




 * users:

(The latter IP spammed a telephone number last year).

One of those accounts also add:



But these are on talkpages.

(Not sure why I report them here .. this seems better to blacklist immediately). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Nothing more in the reports.  to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Curious 'question spam'



 * users:
 * and
 * and
 * and
 * and
 * and
 * and
 * and
 * and
 * and
 * and
 * and
 * and
 * and
 * and

In all cases posting external links with funny questions (some directly, some somewhat related to the subject). IPs obvious from the same range. The websites seem related, especially through this edit (which is strange in itself, why do they switch over the domain). Very, very tempted to blacklist this stuff. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. revertlisting, see if it persists and whether they heed warnings. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

themillennialmirror.com


New domain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: this editor got blocked within minutes after the second addition. Let's see ..  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * users

Ewww. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Essayerudite.com IP hopping cross-wiki spammer


IP hopping spammer has been replacing this nav template with their advert. The previous instances have been revdel'd, but I'm about 90% certain it was the same domain, and 100% certain it was the same academic cheating/fraud through commercial essay writing service. The domain is just given raw, not as a URL, so it does not actually generate a hyperlink. An admin should probably take a look at the deleted revisions to confirm the details. It's probably worth blacklisting the domain(s) anyway, just on principle. WMF have put a global block on the previous IP, so it's cross-wiki. I have already filed a report at WP:RFPP for this template to get it semi-protected for a while.

Murph 9000 (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * , cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅: meta:Talk:Spam blacklist Thanks.  Murph 9000  (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)