Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.
{{Link summary|example.com}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template - Do not include the "http://www." portion of the URL inside this template
  • {{IP summary}} - to report anonymous editors suspected of spamming:
{{IP summary|127.0.0.1}} --- 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

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

Indicators
Reports completed:
 Done
 Stale
Defer discussion:
Defer to XLinkBot
Defer to Local blacklist
Defer to Global blacklist
Defer to Abuse filter
Information:
 Additional information needed
 Note:

Reminder augusto fagioli, Get Wikipedia Page at 85% Off

This is spam, to me. Reporting.

Message:


BEGIN>>>>

Hello augusto fagioli

Do you think Gangnam Style, Justin Bieber and Adele went viral based on just the quality of their work? You’d be wrong if you thought so!

Generating the right type and amount of exposure for yourself or your business is not just a matter of fate or chance but rather a focused and calculated work of digital sciences.

In the digital age, businesses, actors, writers, singers and everyone else who wants to be popular have teams working for them to strategize and manage their content and reputation over the internet. We believe it’s time you took a step in the same direction to get the fire started.

What do we propose? We will take you and your business truly global with a place on the world’s largest online encyclopedia, taking you instantly to the top of your league! It might look like a simple page on Wikipedia but here is what you really need to know to understand the real power of Wiki.

1. Wikipedia is the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet.
2. It is ranked the fifth-most popular website.
3. It comprises more than 40 million articles in 299 different languages.
4. The encyclopedia has 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors each month.
5. Wikipedia's level of accuracy has approached that of Encyclopedia Britannica.

We are not saying that this is all you’ll ever need to go from common to ‘famously known’ but this will surely be the smartest first step towards it.

Interested to know more about it? Don’t wait any longer! We are offering a Special 85% discount on our Digital Services this New Year Click Here to Activate your 85% Off Deal Now.

Your Sincerely,
Debra Lin
Senior Consultant
Wiki Professionals Inc
4330 Clarence Court
Fayetteville, NC 28306

<<<<END


Details:


BEGIN >>>

Messaggio originale
ID messaggio	<[email protected]>
Creato alle:	12 luglio 2018 16:00 (consegnato dopo 11244 secondi)
Da:	WikiPedia <[email protected]> Tramite Mailigen Mailer - **CIDe3fc2040169e9dd1**
A:	augusto fagioli <[email protected]>
Oggetto:	Reminder augusto fagioli, Get Wikipedia Page at 85% Off
SPF:	PASS con l'IP 62.63.191.32 Ulteriori informazioni
DKIM:	'PASS' con il dominio maildedi2.com Ulteriori informazioni
DMARC:	'FAIL' Ulteriori informazioni


Scarica messaggio originale	

<<<<END

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustofagioli (talkcontribs) 12 July 2018 (UTC)


I have been recieving this as well in large numbers on several email addresses. - Peter (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes we have been seeing a lot of these emails being reported. They must be sending out 100s of thousands of them :-( Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Fundraiser websites

gofundme.com

  • gofundme.com: Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintoolsAboutUs.comDomainsDB.netAlexaWhosOnMyServer.com

I was surprised to see this fundraising site is not blacklisted yet. Spotchecking a few usages "references" to this site are either thinly-veiled misuses to promote ongoing fundraisers for various causes, or should be replaced by independent sources for significant donation drives. I'll clean them up, but wanted to check first: have there been any previous discussions about this relatively popular site? (did a Wiki search, but found nothing detailed) GermanJoe (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

indiegogo.com

  • indiegogo.com: Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintoolsAboutUs.comDomainsDB.netAlexaWhosOnMyServer.com

is a similar site with even more dodgy usages in Wikipedia. GermanJoe (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

globalgiving.org

  • globalgiving.org: Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintoolsAboutUs.comDomainsDB.netAlexaWhosOnMyServer.com
  • globalgiving.com: Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintoolsAboutUs.comDomainsDB.netAlexaWhosOnMyServer.com

Another crowdfunding platform, this one is focussing on charity projects (see above "Fundraiser websites" for related info and discussion). Links are misused, primarily by undisclosed COI-editors, either for thinly-veiled donation drive promotions or to "verify" irrelevant self-published PR information or to cite the site's obscure internal vetting ratings as some kind of "award" (neither noteworthy nor credible). These usages have zero encyclopedic value and violate several content guidelines. Only a small minority of links, including a few usages in GlobalGiving, are OK-ish but could be handled by whitelisting. GermanJoe (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: per diff I have added the .com. Need to see some data. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
According to COIBot the link has been used approx. 90 times, approx. 10 of these links may be acceptable (although the extensive usage in GlobalGiving needs some trimming anyway). If you need more info or specific examples, please let me know (I am currently working through some of these links, and have yet to come across a really good usage). GermanJoe (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Cleanup done (except of some usages in the main article and 2 related topics). GermanJoe (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

discussion crowdfunding sites

I am sympathetic to this, like with petitionsites. Blacklist? --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
GoFundMe has little use for ELs on WP, but there are legitimate notable commercial products that use Indiegogo for funding and thus serve as a valid EL for those products (it's basically not quite Kickstarter, but still recognizable). --Masem (t) 04:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@Masem: if they are legitimate notable commercial products then they have an official website I presume. Or do you mean that some of those have it as their official website (and in that case, what would be propotions, is it something that we can do through whitelisting?). To me, the only reason to have the fundraising as an EL is if the fundraising itself is the subject of the article.
I would presume these are pure primary sources (in case used as references). Should in principle be replaced with secondary sources to show that the fact itself is worth mentioning, though unlike with petitions, that may be more difficult to get. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Currently gofundme has 172 active mainspace links, indiegogo is more common with 768 links (in MER'C extended linksearch). I suspect only a small minority are some sort of legitimate usage and would not be replaceable. If that's really the case at the end, both sites should be blacklisted - but with these numbers it'll take some time to verify the situation more thoroughly. It would be great if other editors could spotcheck a few more of these usages to get a better picture of the situation. I haven't found a valid and irreplaceable usage yet, but have checked only 30-40 cases in detail so far. The most common invalid usages seem to be 1) blatant advertising/spam 2) usage of a redundant link, where an independent source already exists 3) passing mention of a likely unremarkable fundraiser. GermanJoe (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I would hope legit products have a website or something else besides the fundraiser page. For example Atari VCS (2019 console) (sufficiently notable) is using indiegogo for funding, but we have its official page so don't link the indiegogo page. But if they were using the indiegogo page as their current product page with specifications and everything, we'd likely link that, even if it offered "buy" or "support us" type payment links. --Masem (t) 13:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@Masem: true. Judging from Joe's post, it suggests that most of the current use is not like that. And we have a whitelist for a reason, to me these look like typical sites that get mis/abused (just like with petitions. It is all fun and games, but you get a lot of 'come and save the peanutbutterbadger by signing the petition [here]' on en.wikipedia. Until now, I have only seen one whitelist request for an open petition that succeeded, and maybe a handful of links to closed ones - they basically do not have utility on Wikipedia. That is what I am trying to gauge here as well: how much is mis/abuse, how much is needed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
That's why I fully agree that gofundme should be blacklisted as spam - I have never seen gofundme used by any legit commercial use that would filter into WP. Indiegogo is still very unlikely to be used in a similar method, but it does have enough "reputation" that can enter into the discussion about a WP standalone topic, but then at that point, most reputable products using indiegogo likely have a better website. So Indiegogo should be an edit filter rather than a blacklist, so that it should warn uses from editing but not block them in the rare case it might be reasonable. --Masem (t) 16:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Your remark is rather perpendicular to Joe's "a similar site with even more dodgy usages" .. the first that I tried, Sean Michel, RJ Mitte, Isabel Rosado, Sabina Vajrača and 9000 needles are all dead links. That seems the fate of many links, all dead, see Betzefer for a good example of that.
Taking Sabina Vajrača as an example, the text is 'Summer Abroad (planned)', carrying a link to the fundraising (which, actually, is at www.indiegogo.com/projects/summer-abroad#/). That is exactly the type of primary stuff that we don't want to use - it is not independent, likely a crystal ball, ánd soapboxing. That is also the case with many of the above (if you go to find where the article now actually is), bad primary referencing, that in the case the situation is now is plain soapboxing. As for my mentioned case of petition sites, if something is worth mentioning, it should have independent secondary sources - this is not the use of self-published sources. I have the feeling that Joe's analysis is similar.
The Oatmeal is the first which I think is fine, there the references make sense.
I split up and renamed this section, I will pull the trigger on gofundme.com, although I also think that the second (and all other similar fundraising sites) should go, having the whitelist take care of the rest. IMHO, disruption for the very few links that are genuine will be minimal. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I'll clean up the gofundme cases over time, but frankly don't feel like looking into all 800 Indiegogo links. Anyway, like Beetstra I believe a blacklist with occasional whitelist requests is needed for both sites (and similar cases) to push back this kind of misuse. When I have some time, I'll also think about a clarification of WP:RS for such sites: links to active petitions and fundraisers should never be acceptable as refs or ELs, unless the fundraiser itself is a notable topic. Both cases should be explicitly mentioned in the guideline. GermanJoe (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I support blanket blacklisting all crowdfunding websites. The situation is qualitatively similar to cryptocurrencies, with a couple of orders of magnitude less money. I'm quite surprised crowdfunding fraud is not a bigger deal, and we don't see as much spamming. Professional, legit, notable crowdfunds should have an official website, and the amount of funding and progress would likely be covered by secondary sources. There should be no need to link to a crowdfunding page. MER-C 10:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
@MER-C: the 'spamming' with these sites is likely the same type as for petition sites - a couple of people adding one particular petition to one particular page on Wikipedia, and that happens then with many individual causes (with for each cause a different group of people and a different link). Not the typical one person adding multiple links to multiple pages. Patterns is similar to pornhub - many schoolkids who add it to the wikipedia page of their school. No 'spamming', just abuse on many individual fronts (for the notable porn sites I have never seen spamming campaigns by SEOs or people from the sites on Wikipedia ...).
For the notable crowdfunding websites we would follow the same as for other websites, we whitelist an index.htm, or an about page. I am a bit weary to pull the trigger on the other one with 800 pages linking to it, that may cause a stirr. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at WT:RS to clarify the guideline itself regarding this aspect. GermanJoe (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

skncosmetics.com etc

Links
  • skncosmetics.com: Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintoolsAboutUs.comDomainsDB.netAlexaWhosOnMyServer.com
  • laserskincare.ae: Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintoolsAboutUs.comDomainsDB.netAlexaWhosOnMyServer.com
Users

I've long removed skncosmetics.com from hospital list articles as it showed up and it keeps showing up. Additions now commonly replace other external links in an additional attempt to avoid crutiny. It has been added by many socks as COIBot attests. I also noticed laserskincare.ae which needs to be cleaned up from articles (I'll do that later if it's not been done already). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, —PaleoNeonate – 04:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I did see the first domain there, but how about laserskincare.ae? Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 04:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: I found the second as part of 58.65.129.35's edits (who also added the first domain). —PaleoNeonate – 04:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

nationsroot.com

nationsroot.com: Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintoolsAboutUs.comDomainsDB.netAlexaWhosOnMyServer.com

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

ASHVIN1689 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Jwalant82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Hello. I can see there's already a COIBot report. One may be tempted to speculate that ShabinaP is a sock of Shabina Peerzada. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Biwom: I am more tempted to speculate that this is a sockfarm for WP:REFSPAM. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

DarkComet

DarkComet appears to be undergoing an edit-war between two competing domains each claiming to be the official domain hosting DarkComet, a RAT program. A source appearing to be some sort of cracking or hacking enthusiast site is used as the source. This source purports to be the biography of the RAT's author. This does not appear to be a reliable, mainstream media outlet source. Indeed, such a source likely doesn't exist, as mainstream media would not point you toward the specific website for a RAT software. Currently, two editors are involved:

PhrozenSAS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) This user states that the website is darkcomet-rat.com: Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintoolsAboutUs.comDomainsDB.netAlexaWhosOnMyServer.com , which is on the cited source.

DarkCometRat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) This user states that the website is darkcometrat.com: Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintoolsAboutUs.comDomainsDB.netAlexaWhosOnMyServer.com , which is not on the cited source.

Because at least one of the sites must be fake (why would a RAT programmer create two sites that each say the other is fake?) and the source given is unreliable, I have removed the external link for the time being and demanded page protection on the relevant noticeboard.

It is also to be noted that there is a technical irregularity: when the "website" section of the infobox is removed, the website defaults to phrozensoft.com: Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintoolsAboutUs.comDomainsDB.netAlexaWhosOnMyServer.com . This occurs even though the website does not appear in the wikicode source. Given the fact that the article relates to a hacking tool, and someone who has the knowledge to create a RAT tool or modify a hacking tool to add a backdoor or scam people might have the technical prowess to hack a website, such technological irregularities are suspicious and demand attention. EDIT: I confirmed that this is not due to hacking but rather because it's on WikiData.--Leugen9001 (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: Wired links to darkcomet-rat.com (with a dash) as the correct official website. --Leugen9001 (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@Leugen9001: I am undeleting your post again, we need to see which are the not-official one, and decide on blacklisting them. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@Leugen9001:The mysterious website is probably coming from Wikidata - that will need to be changed to the correct page, whatever it is. Ravensfire (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Note that DarkCometRat modified Leugen9001's post above, modifying its meaning. I have reverted the changes. DarkCometRat, if you would like to comment, you may do so below; please do not modify other editors' comments. –FlyingAce✈hello 23:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I believe that the one with the single dash (www.darkcomet-rat.com) is the real one. (To ensure that the url is not edited, check history. MD5 hash of url without http or slashes: 910ea0677d9759b87790cffa4706753d. First 4 letters "September 10th Electronic Arts".) The website with the dash says that DarkComet is no longer offered, consistent with reliable reports from Symantec and Wired. Livehacking and Wired also link to it as the real official website, with Wired claiming to have spoken to the creator of the hacking tool. If I was trying to trick others into downloading a fake version of DarkComet boobytrapped with some backdoor, I would at least provide an install link. It likely that User:PhrozenSAS is indeed telling the truth. --Leugen9001 (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Should we even have an official website link for a trojan? DaßWölf 01:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Daß Wölf: we generally link to the official website of a subject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I was under the impression that the site was currently offering malware. It seems from Leugen9001's comment above that it isn't the case. DaßWölf 19:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

If anything is better blacklisted, please report this at meta (as clearly we already have WD involved). --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Here are two additional links that prove darkcomet-rat.com is the genuine one. See : https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/10/darkcomet_rat_killed_off/ and https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18783064 PhrozenSAS (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

espressogurus.com

Refspamming espressogurus.com into multiple articles. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

User warned, lets see if this progresses. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=854975979"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA