Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2021 Archive Nov

User:Eranga933
SPA dedicated to promoting the ChaSpi spice company. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Watch spam
Persistent spamming of watch store site(s). ☆ Bri (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked. to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 20:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Mass spam of mathvault.ca



 * It looks like Muaumee has been adding links to mathvault.ca for quite a while. There are hundreds of these links, I think cleanup is going to have to be a group project. sustainabilitist.com is more recent and follows the same pattern between the registered user and the IP - spammy citation links mixed in with additions of legitimate sources. - MrOllie (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Other IPs as well. I found 45.72.145.175 with the same verbose edit summary adding Mathvault to Chain rule back in July 2019. This has been going on for quite some time. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * 45.72.207.67 on Desmos (graphing) in 2016
 * 69.196.134.138 on Desmos (graphing) in 2019
 * 45.72.145.175 on Chain rule in 2019
 * 216.154.52.48 on Tetration in 2019
 * 45.72.139.108 on Inverse function theorem in 2019
 * 69.196.163.34 on Differentiation rules and Logarithm in 2019

I've removed a bunch but I have to take a break now. Good luck with the rest. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There was a whole thing about this a year ago; I don't think Miaumee has made any significant contributions since then (at least not under their account). --JBL (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] Is there some analysis or explanation of how it was concluded that these links are bad? Not merely "someone has been systematically adding links to this other site", but "someone has been systematically adding links to this other site, and those links are inappropriate for the articles they were added to"? For instance, this one on Logarithm (linking to User:Notfrompedro's removal) looks like an informative site, and one that probably does adequately source the claim it was listed as a reference for; why is removing it and leaving an unmarked but unsourced claim the right thing to do? Should we similarly go through and systematically remove all MathWorld links from our articles, or all OEIS links? Why? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * What tips the needle for me is the subsequent linkspamming of sustainabilitist.com, which is owned/run by the same person as mathvault.ca. I would say that what happened here is someone added hundreds of citations to their own self published web site. - MrOllie (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * JBL, User:MrOllie, why is Miaumee not blocked? Drmies (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the current IP (135.23.197.114) is. They seem to have mostly abandoned the user account after the ANI thread took place. I tend to think that it isn't worth requesting blocks on inactive accounts because they don't serve to prevent anything. MrOllie (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree: the user is continuing a disruptive pattern, and refusing to engage in conversation. Using an IP is, from my point of view, merely a way to avoid scrutiny. I am going to block, and if they wish to get unblocked they can request that--and they'll have to address the concerns addressed in here as well, besides the logged-out editing. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't block people, so why blame me? ;-p Actually I was not aware that they had continued to edit as an IP.  (Logged in, they were all over my watchlist before I the earlier episode I linked above, so their logged-out editing must be less disruptive.)  --JBL (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * JBL, maybe you should do something about that. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha -- maybe if sortition passes. --JBL (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm I just learned a new word. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Is Mathvault basically a wiki? It does seem that you can become a writer there, and I do not see a good description of editorial overview. The 2 articles I went through (one about logarithms and one about geometric and trigonometric symbols) certainly don't look bad, but it is all just tertiary source material (a good math book or an encyclopedia will bring you the same info). The owners, nor the writers of the specific pages do not seem to be well celebrated subject specialists.

The sustainabilitist seems to be a personal account, not a specific subject specialist. Information may not be bad (I didn't/can't judge), but is this something that needs to be spread everywhere?

I feel neither of these would pass a discussion on WP:RSN and that these two (related) sites are both added by SPA-type accounts does not make it sound good either. It really starts looking like blatant self promotion of material which is not really suitable for use in Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm pleased to report that all of the article space links have now been removed, only some talk page and user page links remain. Thanks to everyone who chipped in! I did find another related site, storyofmathematics.com. Miaumee spammed this less (10s of links rather than 100), I'll remove them today. - MrOllie (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Since I've gotten a question about this on my talk page, I'll note here for the archives that I don't have direct evidence linking storyofmathematics, aside from the fact that Miaumee added both. However, the site is self published and lists Wikipedia as one of its sources, so references were also removed per WP:CIRCULAR. MrOllie (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

routerhosting.com
There could be other users – waiting for the COIBot report to run. —Bruce1eetalk 11:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Added other users from COIBot report. Also reported this domain at Meta as some of the spamming is cross-Wiki. —Bruce1eetalk 07:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

artdesigncafe.com
Likely WP:COI reference spamming by a user that appears to be affiliated with the site (after creating this report, I see past reports that include other users; appending). OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

So now I am considered a spammer after this pursuit of "notability". Yes, I do research on things that end up with various sources as contributions, including artdesigncafe. For example, I am probably the most knowledgeable person regarding several design histories. Does that not add value? Otherwise there's nothing at times on wikipedia. If you have the power for a spam assertion, which I presume you do. Please take action to have every contribution I have ever made to wikipedia deleted. Can you do that?Mrdnartdesign (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: previous discussion about this site can be found here. -- Kinu t/c 18:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding above, this is first time I am aware of this. There's a lot in the somewhat internal message. It wasn't scraping. The content mentioned were books by academic John A. Walker. Things like a guide to films, another a glossary to art & design, so sections / chapters by topic. I'd think the hard-copy version referencing would be there. He kept the book / guide copyrights, and wanted it on online and on the old artdesigncafe (like some other colleagues then; if you are younger, it was a different era. All of us wanted our hard-copy publications also online). There was a spat and I think he moved it to scribd. It might be there if you want to link to it. It's good stuff. He's now deceased. Ten years later, some of these dead links still come in, but very irregularly, as even over 10 years, no one has updated these pages. Maybe 1-2 / month per topic per month. I see the commentor, for some reason, couldn't find them in the system. If this is still the case, an estimated list could be made, if helpful. I imagine there could be strays with a visit in coming months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.152.70 (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

(Former mrdnartdesign above)

Also see, as I'm learning about Wikipedia processes, and frankly politics, rules, alignments, and procedural placements, after an almost exclusive focus on content, as I leave it: "Request to have all Wiki contributions blacklisted" string initiated by me on 24 November 2021 on "Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents"; and my request for senior management review starting with how this got here: '"Not notable" - Emily Hall Tremaine, Madison, CT' on 24 November 2021 on "Magnolia677" user talk page. This was I recall my first dispute, certainly with any conflict, at Wiki. In this first and last process involving detailed wiki processes, and learning through experience what this "consensus" thing really means, it took many, many exchanges to find out, clearly, by an administrator: "There is no senior management. There is no management at all" to realize what I've been dealing with. It also better explains why, as a casual contributor of various things certainly beyond links to various sites, why less active content pages here look the way they do-- often a mess for years; how others' additions at times were removed that seemed reasonable, and never re-added due to the requirement of consensus, versus quick one-stop editorial decision-making. I presume there is not enough interest in engaging in the consensus process involving many people. I never said anything, thinking a management of sorts made the decision, like non-Wiki environments. In the end, through this process, I and the colleagues in my sphere want, respectfully, nothing to do with Wikipedia content additions in future, and effectively 360-degree assessment "throw something into consensus" dynamics, which can be abused. I wish all contributions of mine in the past could be removed, and I wish this process happened earlier as that time clearly was more productive elsewhere. We have no interest in widespread consensus, instead working with like-minded individuals. Best. (former mrdnartdesign) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.152.70 (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

It also should be noted, that in the past few days, I've had a couple of people here on wiki approach me and say "oh, we wish you wouldn't leave", you are effectively a NEWBIE, and "oh, the content you contributed to is really good; would be sad to see it go". Well I now I get it-- a diversity of views, sometimes strong, on things and it works itself out via time-consuming "consensus". Well, that is clearly what you /wiki does, but noting, it's not for everyone and in conflict, not for me. I now appreciate good senior management that can sort something out quickly like never before. And if I cleanly could go back in and start deleting recognizable contributions, I'd do that, just to get rid of it. In the end on the administrators page, I was told about the "common license", and unwanted contribs would all weed itself out. (former mrdnartdesign) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.152.70 (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Please note that there was a nice edit done regarding a contribution by those I believe are well in the wiki system. It was a nice experience and that contact is ongoing, and I will no longer edit anything at all, and at most will make suggestions to others in that approved structure. Having said this, for the record, I hope in future it becomes possible for a website administrator, in some way, to be to "opt out" of future linking (and I don't know, maybe even source mentions) to another website. In this way, there could be no future suspicion. To me, it would seem only fair, and clear. (Former mrdnartdesign) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.152.70 (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)