Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2019 Archive Oct 2

Suspicious new articles
These are a batch of new articles disproportionally more likely to be undisclosed advertising.

Batch to 6 October 2019
Placed here because it is counterproductive to notify spammers that their spam is being scrutinized. MER-C 17:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

beautypageants.indiatimes.com
Self-described native advertising. See details at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard -- Bri.public (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

leadingauthorities.com


Paid (declared) editor has added multiple promotional links to the payer's website. -- Bri.public (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_J._O%27Neill_(Navy_SEAL)&diff=prev&oldid=904503450
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Allen_(journalist)&diff=prev&oldid=904526137
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlie_Cook&diff=prev&oldid=904527129
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jon_Steinberg&diff=prev&oldid=907811404
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephanie_Cutter&diff=prev&oldid=907812701
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Pelley&diff=prev&oldid=907813248
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Schieffer&diff=prev&oldid=907813681
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Saunders_(explorer)&diff=prev&oldid=910101045
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanley_A._McChrystal&diff=prev&oldid=910101688
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Capehart&diff=prev&oldid=910102685
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Howard_Fineman&diff=prev&oldid=910103832
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicolle_Wallace&diff=prev&oldid=910105112
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Hayden_(general)&diff=prev&oldid=910106444
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dana_Perino&diff=prev&oldid=910107251
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ana_Navarro&diff=prev&oldid=910108395
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norah_O%27Donnell&diff=prev&oldid=910110199
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jake_Tapper&diff=prev&oldid=910111867
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josh_Earnest&diff=prev&oldid=910114289
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kristin_Beck&diff=prev&oldid=910115446
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Clapper&diff=prev&oldid=910117779

Spring Launch Media LLC.

 * Sites


 * IP
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

All of these accounts are SPAs which add or usurp references. The added sites typically rehost bland public information, such as Social Security Administration name data, o some barely host any content at all. The websites all appear to use variations of the same generic template, and some list "Spring Launch Media, LLC." as the owner. They are pretty sloppy about it, as this edit adds a link to an unrelated site. Grayfell (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Additional accounts
 * Blacklisted. MER-C 18:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted. MER-C 18:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted. MER-C 18:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted. MER-C 18:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted. MER-C 18:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted. MER-C 18:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

organicbreastenlargements.com

 * Both users blocked indefinitely. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Both users blocked indefinitely. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Both users blocked indefinitely. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Both users blocked indefinitely. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Controversial Page
Please take off this controversial page which was started on 6th Aug 2019.. this is politically sentitive item and can cause chaos .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azad_Kashmir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erta42 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , the page has been there since 2005. Moreover, this is not an issue for WikiProject Spam.  If you have real concerns (which you then need to explain in a bit more detail), I suggest you take that to AN/I. Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

moneysavingexpert.com - review requested
This was added in November 2018: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2018_Archive_Nov_1 under a rather pejorative title, with several other sites, by. MoneySavingExpert.com is not a reliable source. Owned by Moneysupermarket.com, a price comparison site. Most links are to the site's "blog" and "forums" subdomain, and even the pages on the root domain are highly promotional.

I've just run into this tonight, after reworking Boiler Scrappage Scheme. I'd chosen MoneySavingExpert.com deliberately as the most obviously trustworthy and objective UK sore to cover such a topic. I was thus rather surprised to see a blacklist in place! Now maybe it has changed in recent years, but the content I was using here was from 2010, before the sale to Moneysupermarket.

I see this blacklist as quite wrong (and I doubt that it was called for by anyone from the UK). If sections of it are blog or forum content, then we have WP:BLOG and WP:FORUM for that. As to its reliability, it's no different from the personal finance pages of any of the better newspapers. Yes, there is advertising, but the content is objective and widely trusted. It's regarded as well as Consumer Reports, Which etc. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The majority of the content in MoneySavingExpert.com is sponsored content, not just the website's blogs and forums. The site's articles are written specifically to enable affiliate marketing, with calls to action encouraging readers to engage in transactions with the site's sponsors. Consumer Reports and Which? operate on paid subscription models that do not have the same conflict of interest issues as the native advertising used by MoneySavingExpert.com. Articles on MoneySavingExpert.com that do not have sponsored content can still be whitelisted. —  Newslinger  talk   00:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I see an edit like this as bordering far too close on SOAPBOXing, if not downright vandalism. I would also dispute your claims here. Which doesn't become any more reliable because it uses a subscription model, nor do we exclude entire newspapers because they might run paid advertising. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is that edit in context: Special:Diff/922098383/922107846. I replaced MoneySavingExpert.com (a blacklisted site) and Grants Expert (a self-published blog) with The Independent and The Guardian . The new sources fully support the claims that were referenced to the removed citations. We do, in fact, exclude websites that are too promotionally toned. For example,  concluded that CoinDesk  should not be used – I actually opposed that RfC because I didn't see CoinDesk publish calls to action, but the promotional tone was enough for there to be consensus to exclude CoinDesk. —  Newslinger   talk   00:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the problem. No defence of your single-handed blacklisting (I see no RfC on MSE), just removing it wholesale from the article. Your POV tagging of the MSE article isn't much better. It's a site that you have a problem with, and I see no evidence that anyone else does.
 * As to Grants Expert, then what's your view on the John Rowlinson media empire? (I can guess!)  But merely saying "unreliable blog" doesn't make it true. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've completed a source review of the Boiler Scrappage Scheme article. You can see all of my changes here: Special:Diff/922098383/922109979. You can restore the removed MoneySavingExpert.com citations after submitting them to WT:WHITELIST, but I don't think they would add anything to the article. The version of the MoneySavingExpert.com article that I tagged, Special:Permalink/866904148, was highly promotional with a significant volume of inadequately sourced ad-like copy (e.g. "Site elements"). I thank and  for cleaning the article up in Special:Diff/893759162 and Special:Diff/911453620, and I've removed the tags accordingly.  "Grants Under the Boiler Scrappage Scheme", published in GrantsExpert, is a self-published source because it is one person's blog post, and that person (Kevin Watson) is not a subject-matter expert. I'm not aware of any relationship between GrantsExpert and John Rowlinson, and there is no indication that the John Rowlinson described in the About Our Site page is John Shipley Rowlinson or another notable individual.  Feel free to start a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard if you want to request opinions on MoneySavingExpert.com and GrantsExpert from other editors. —  Newslinger   talk   00:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Just found this conversation and not going to debate it because I've long since given up trying to figure out how some of the decisions are made on Wikipedia. I said all intended to previously. I'll just add that I'm a fan of MSE since close to when it started, I do believe their explanation, here, about how they decide what to write and that it's consumer-driven rather than profit-driven. I only came to this page to give a mea culpa that a lot of the links that were used as evidence that MSE should be put on the blacklist, were in fact added by me in my attempt to give sources to text that was written by linking to the site where external sources were not available. Whether you like the site or not, whether you agree with the site or not, it absolutely does not deserve to be on a spam blacklist as, I assume, such a blacklist is for when a website is actively trying to manipulate Wikipedia. That's absolutely not the case here. Just have a look at the article! I wouldn't believe for a second any employee of MSE had been anywhere near that. It was built by well-meaning fans - myself included - who couldn't write advertising copy, or create a successful spam campaign if we tried. Aldaden (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And by the way, where I have said "here" above is where I tried to link to the MSE "How the site is financed" page. Which, of course, I can't link you to because of this rediculous ban. Aldaden (talk)