Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WPSPAM)
Jump to: navigation, search
Emblem-important.svg When reporting spam, please use the appropriate template(s):
As a courtesy, please consider informing other editors if their actions are being discussed.
  • {{IP summary}} - to report anonymous editors suspected of spamming:
{{IP summary|}} --- do not use "subst:" with this template
  • {{User summary}} - to report registered users suspected of spamming:
{{User summary|Username}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template
{{Link summary|}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template
Do not include the "http://www." portion of the URL inside this template

Also, please include links ("diffs") to sample spam edits.

Reports completed:
Yes check.svg Done
Defer discussion:
Defer to XLinkBot
Defer to Local blacklist
Defer to Meta blacklist
Defer to Abuse filter
 Additional information needed
Pictogram voting info.svg Note:

User CodeCruncher[edit]

CodeCruncher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

I've noticed User:CodeCruncher seems to be engaging in promotion of the Rhyme Genie software. After creating an article about the software, the user has repeatedly added wikilinks to that article in the "See Also" sections of other rhyme-related articles. Not sure how to deal with this; the user might be acting in good faith, or this might be a deliberate strategy to avoid the scrutiny given to external links. Could someone look into this? 2001:558:6045:A9:C65:CFC6:E085:9818 (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I reinstated what I believe to be a perfectly valid link to an internal Wikipedia article vetted by experienced Wikipedia editors. According to Wikipedia's 'Guide to Layout': See also section is a list of internal links to related Wikipedia articles (perfect vs. imperfect rhyme). Please notify me if this is indeed regarded as spam as I am acting in good faith and it is not my intent to violate any of Wikipedia's policies.CodeCruncher (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Please also note that the only links created are in the ‘See also’ sections of ‘rhyme’, ‘perfect rhyme’ and ‘imperfect rhyme’. Please look at the edit history of each of these three articles to decide whether my intent was to spam. At times the entire ‘See also’ sections were completely removed by IP users without a Wikipedia account.CodeCruncher (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
In fact, you have added "See also" links to RhymeGenie in at least eight different articles:
Of these, I would consider only "Rhyming dictionary" appropriate. The others are too tangentially related to be worth a "See also" link. It would be like adding a link to AntWeb in the "See also" section of every article relating to ants on Wikipedia.
Moreover, creating the RhymeGenie and TuneSmith articles and adding links to them is pretty much all you have done on Wikipedia. This suggests to me that you are affiliated with the company and are attempting to promote your software through Wikipedia. However, I'd like some other editors to weigh in on this, since I may be in the minority with this opinion. --The OP (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Looking at my contribution history I can confirm that four link were added in January 2012 and four more in March 2012. Perfect rhyme and half rhyme were removed and reinstated in 2014. The other links were never contested. I can see how my contribution history can raise suspicion but you have to admit that questioning the character of your fellow contributors while your IP address doesn't even stay the same is counterintuitive. I am certain that I would have given your changes more weight if you had created a Wikipedia account. Most of these articles are stubs and are vandalized frequently.CodeCruncher (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The fact that I am not logged in has no bearing on this discussion. And I am not questioning your character, I'm questioning your disruptive behavior. Just because these articles are frequently vandalized does not mean they are acceptable targets for self-promotion. (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
‘Disruptive behavior’ implies that the article in question is completely unrelated to the other articles. Maybe I misinterpreted Wikipedia’s ‘Guide to Layout’. I think we will both benefit greatly from the opinion of a more experienced editor to lay this argument to rest.CodeCruncher (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, this may be a simple misunderstanding. By the way, are you affiliated with RhymeGenie? If so, you may want to have a look at WP:COI and WP:PSCOI. (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
How can you ask for more transparency and accountability if you provide none in return? I’ll make you an offer that will allow us to end this debate in a more constructive way. If you create a permanent user account and add one new article to the rhyme section of Wikipedia I’ll follow suit and add two new articles. We will link the newly created articles to this thread so experienced editors can examine if they meet all of Wikipedia's requirements. This will greatly improve the rhyme section as a whole and benefit the entire Wikipedia community.CodeCruncher (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Here is my first new article: Amphisbaenic rhyme CodeCruncher (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your show of good faith, but I'm not interested in bargaining. If you are affiliated with the company, you should avoid conflicts of interest in editing. This is not my policy, but Wikipedia's. (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
In case you have a change of heart in the future here is my second new article: Light rhyme. We will have to wait for an experienced editor to weigh in and help us decide wether the three links in the ‘See also’ section of ‘rhyme’, ‘perfect rhyme’ and ‘imperfect rhyme’ offer relevant and pertinent information. I believe they do and welcome further debate.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────To reiterate what the IP user said, as is mentioned in the conflict of interest policy the Terms of Use you agree to every time you click the "Save Page" button mandate that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation" by one of the methods listed there if you are making edits on topics with which you have a conflict of interest. Your other contributions to the project, the activities of other users, and whether or not you create an account do not provide any justification for you or anyone else to conceal conflicts of interest. There are recommendations of best practices for editors with close associations. ▸∮truthiousandersnatch 15:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Samachar[edit] Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchVeinor pagesmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain:

Cite spammer in musician articles (again)[edit]

Hello I posted this earlier but didn't get a reply from anyone about how to proceed. I'd appreciate a reply, or advice on how to handle this. Thank you

--CutOffTies (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The users hasn't edited since posting the apology last time, so we probably don't need to do anything at the moment. Just keep and eye on Gtmo to ensure they don't do it again. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Jbray77 and[edit]

Jbray77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) Users only contributions are adding external links to After reverting, no other links seem to exist in the mainspace, thankfully. 23W 09:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Resin (software)[edit]


Maybe this counts as spam, or maybe it doesn't: in any case this article is quite a mess and always has been. (Not link spam for the most part, content spam - this line of software products is definitely notable, it's just seemed impossible over the years to even begin getting it in to encyclopedic shape. Now an effort is being made to even obscure the fact that there are two dramatically-different commercial and open-source editions/categories of it.)

Yesterday, the IP was blocked, then unblocked by the same administrator after discussion, in ANI:"slander" claim on Resin Server article.

While the block was in effect User:Jsrcse, an account created that same day, engaged in the same indiscriminate revert behavior as the IP's previous edits—targeting the same article sections, deleting cited quotations drawn from the product vendor's own marketing material and download page, removing {{Cleanup-spam}} and {{Peacock}}, stripping out actual quotes and accurate descriptions of the contents of existing sources, etc., all with a single deceptive edit comment about "clarifying" a detail—and then elevated the Wikiproject:Java importance in the talk page.

The edits of the above SPAs in the last month hit several of the WP:VANDTYPES right on the button as I see it, all in the pursuit of reducing the actual encyclopedic content of the page and making an already-brochure-like article even more promotional, and so appear to obviously be spam to me. But I don't have the time or energy right now that holding ground against and fulfilling long, arduous, low-ROI bureaucratic processes against multiple coordinated accounts that act precociously (whether as sockpuppets or backed by more than one person) has required in the past as a non-admin, so I'm posting this here in the hopes that you guys have better insight or approaches. --▸∮truthiousandersnatch 13:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Pinoydom spam only account[edit]

Pinoydom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) - this user's spam article Manila Forwarder was just speedy deleted, but if you look at this user's contribution, nearly all of their edits have been to add references to this company to Balikbayan box, going back to 2009. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Spamming marijuana related businesses[edit]

Momgroup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) - this user has two recently speedy deleted articles, Mc Farlin LLP and Evergreen Agra, and another one under PROD, Otherside Farms. Evergreen and Otherside are both spam articles promoting small marijuana companies, and I suspect McFarlin is the same. I PRODed Otherside mainly because it has several sources and has been around a while, but it might be a speedy delete candidate. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)