Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2019 Archive Mar 1

Exclaim! film reviews
Today I came across linkspammer who was adding film reviews from Exclaim! across multiple articles. Using Special:Linksearch, I found many more such WP:REFSPAM in recent film articles. This is not the first time it has happened. I had to do a similar cleaning-out last October 2018 as seen here due to doing the same thing. There are likely more such accounts that focus on trying to spread Exclaim! references across Wikipedia. I suggest blacklisting this domain and blocking the editors. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclaim is used in thousands of music articles as a WikiProject Music reliable source so it should not be blacklisted, just block the spammers and use the mass revert tool on their edits is more reasonable in my view, thanks Atlantic306 (talk)
 * Hmm, is it possible to block a sub-domain? Like "exclaim.ca/articles/film"? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall being annoyed that Exclaim! was on the blacklist previously – they do write a lot of reviews. If they're spamming again, I guess we've got a case to re-add it.  However, I could take care of the spammers if they're reported to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclaim! cannot be blacklisted outright, as it is a fully reliable source which is essential to be able to use when it comes to (especially but not exclusively Canadian) music, and important to have on the list of options for (especially Canadian) film articles as well. (I'll grant that film isn't the magazine's primary subject domain, so it's not as unavoidably essential in film as it is in music — but its use in film articles cannot be entirely verboten, because it's still a necessary and useful option sometimes.) If people are adding it in a not-useful way, such as sticking it as a superfluous footnote on content that isn't actually supported by it or just quoting very short snippets from it that aren't actually saying anything substantive to add value to the article, then that's a problem with their editing behaviour as individuals — but it's not a problem with Exclaim!'s fundamental acceptability as a source, and should not result in its use being comprehensively disallowed. If it gets blacklisted, I am fully prepared to fight to the death over that, because there is no across the board problem with its use as a reference for Wikipedia content. Just because you've never heard of it doesn't automatically mean it's bad — it's a long-established print magazine that's been around for decades and meets all of the criteria to be considered a reliable source, so it's not automatically an invalid source just because it's distributed only in Canada but poorly known in the United States. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If it is being spammed to the point that volunteers are having trouble keeping on top of it, it belongs on the spam blacklist, reliable or not. Spamming is a behavior we need to control, and does not involve judgement of the site itself. But there's no need to fight to the death, this is why we also have the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist, so trusted editors can continue using it in those cases where it is a proper source. - MrOllie (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

capital.com
Hello. Note that Capital.com was deleted on 19 March 2018 following Articles for deletion/Capital.com. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello. Out of 19 links currently present in our articles, 16 were added by just one user - the other 3 by IPs. I have warned the user and will endeavour to remove all the links. Please blacklist the site if you see fit. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello. I have removed all 19 links. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

African mining (and oil!) billionaire spam


Hey, all,

Today, I've been dealing with some hoax editing that occurred over the past 18 months that I'd like to inform people of and this seems to be the page to do that on. Editor(s) from Durban, South Africa, specifically User:Byaruhanga Kimberly Junior, User:Byaruhanga kimberly Jnr, User:165.255.221.40, User:165.255.227.26, User:165.255.203.109, User:165.255.203.240, User:165.255.164.224, User:165.255.94.188, User:165.255.200.26, User:165.255.164.140, User:165.255.165.238, User:165.255.203.242, and User:41.246.25.52 (for starters) have been making hoax edits to articles about wealth and mining in Africa including List of Africans by net worth, Black billionaires, List of African millionaires, and Mining industry of South Africa, Hoima–Kampala Petroleum Products Pipeline, Uganda Oil Refinery, and Uganda–Tanzania Crude Oil Pipeline. The edits have occurred semi-randomly, beginning in 2015 but especially in 2018.

As much as I can piece together, Byaruhanga Kimberly Junior (from the deleted articles Byaruhanga Kimberly Junior and Byaruhanga kimberly Junior) claims to be a South African mining magnate, with the company JK Diamonds, who is personally worth $2.1 billion dollars. The articles on wealth cite Forbes as a source but the only mentions of this individual I can find, besides social media pages, are from news blogs that clearly took their information from Wikipedia articles that were spammed with his name. I can't overstate how jarring it is to find serious articles about African Billionaires on the internet which list Junior's name which are clearly simply taken from Wikipedia articles where the editor added himself. It clearly showed how important reliable sources are to the project.

It turns out there is a 36 year old Byaruhanga Kimberly Junior (his profile) who works for JK Minerals Africa which is actually an Indian company, Jammu & Kashmir Minerals. But he is not a billionaire and JK Minerals is not an African-owned business. Incidentally, through my efforts to track down what is going on here, I found several times where editors added their own names to the Black billionaires article where it took months for them to be recognized and removed. In general, we need to be suspicious of unknown billionaires who don't have their own article on Wikipedia because, by the time they've acquired $1 billion, most do. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

One more made 4 edits around 15:23, 6 March 2019:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

And these two:
 * 14:27, 20 October 2017
 * 13:46, 22 April 2018

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch
Your project space has a page at WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch with ~1100 subpages. From what I can tell, these pages were maintained by a bot that has been banned for nearly 10 years. Are these pages worth keeping or should they just be deleted or redirected to the main project page? William Graham talk 23:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * so e of these may still present records of stuff that was blacklisted 10 years ago (evidence of spamming). There maybe reason to clean it out, but not blanket-wise.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Tim Berners-Lee Page Abuse
Jackyboy76 messing with Tim Berners-Lee

--99.46.120.53 (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Done - minor vandalism reverted (wasn't actually "spam" per se). Thank you for pointing this out. GermanJoe (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

compelo.com
Hello. Back in 2017, there was a (now blocked) User:CompeloMedia who was adding links towards this web site. Since then, links seem to have been added slowly, which does not really look suspicious, but what I find horrendous is the "latest news, features and insight on influencers and innovators within business" that comes along (see example here). Is this added automatically by one of our tools? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Wrong
I tried to add a link https://expres.online/archive/main/2017/02/08/227083-desyatka-ty-chlenkor-akademiyi-nauk to the article Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization), but it is blocked by spam filter. --Wanderer777 (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * you will have to make your case at the whitelist, . --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. --Wanderer777 (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

allopark.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 19:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

MER-C 17:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * MER-C 12:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

expobeds.com
Obvious refspam is obvious. expobeds.com says they provide "accommodation solutions" and "specialise in hotel reservations - both individual and group. We can also assist you with conference room bookings, transfers from/to: airport, hotel and venue, dinner reservations and logistics support." ☆ Bri (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Spamming Equinox page


From early morning there is constant editing on Equinox from different IPs. Changing links and linking whole first segment to "㥗釛.xsl.pt". Please protect temporally this page. Xunonotyk (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This has been blacklisted globally, but apparently the encoding disables that. I am implementing a temporary edit filter.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see Special:AbuseFilter/976. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * now really been solved, blacklisted on meta (it needed to be done in a non-conventional way). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you really save the day! Xunonotyk (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Five spam pages
After I posted Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, I wondered if I should have posted here instead. Probably not, but I'm trolling here for some input over there, please, specifically with regard to being bold and deleting them all per db-g11 as opposed to the more conservative (and tedious) approach I took. – Athaenara ✉  15:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

neisseriameningitidis.com

 * Adding to blacklist, reporting here for reference. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding to blacklist, reporting here for reference. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding to blacklist, reporting here for reference. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding to blacklist, reporting here for reference. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding to blacklist, reporting here for reference. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

spam campaigns for three sites; geekytips.co.uk, techwikies.com, resumelocker.com
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted three sites; spam campaigns from multiple users. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * resumelocker was entered into the blacklist and the log without the leading "r".
 * Blacklisted three sites; spam campaigns from multiple users. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * resumelocker was entered into the blacklist and the log without the leading "r".
 * Blacklisted three sites; spam campaigns from multiple users. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * resumelocker was entered into the blacklist and the log without the leading "r".
 * Blacklisted three sites; spam campaigns from multiple users. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * resumelocker was entered into the blacklist and the log without the leading "r".