Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Spam
Also, please include links ("diffs") to sample spam edits.
 | WikiProject Spam was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 18 July 2011. |
| Indicators |
|---|
| Reports completed: |
 Done
|
 No action
|
 Stale
|
| Defer discussion: |
 Defer to XLinkBot
|
| Defer to Local blacklist
|
| Defer to Global blacklist
|
| Defer to edit filter
|
| Information: |
 Additional information needed
|
 Note:
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Suspicious new articles
List of reports here. Remove transclusions when all finished to keep page readable.
Suspicious new articles (2024-12-21)
2024-12-21: Break 0
2024-12-21: Break 1
2024-12-21: Break 2
2024-12-21: Break 3
2024-12-21: Break 4
2024-12-21: Break 5
2024-12-21: Break 6
2024-12-21: Break 7
2024-12-21: Break 8
2024-12-21: Break 9
Suspicious new articles (2025-01-11)
2025-01-11: Break 0
2025-01-11: Break 1
2025-01-11: Break 2
2025-01-11: Break 3
2025-01-11: Break 4
2025-01-11: Break 5
2025-01-11: Break 6
2025-01-11: Break 7
Suspicious new articles (2025-02-01)
2025-02-01: Break 0
2025-02-01: Break 1
2025-02-01: Break 2
2025-02-01: Break 3
2025-02-01: Break 4
2025-02-01: Break 5
2025-02-01: Break 6
2025-02-01: Break 7
2025-02-01: Break 8
Buddhism
t 2001:D08:1400:6701:181C:7694:41D1:3DCD stripchat 2001:D08:1400:6701:181C:7694:41D1:3DCD (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Xhamster live video camera
2001:D08:1400:6701:181C:7694:41D1:3DCD 2001:D08:1400:6701:181C:7694:41D1:3DCD (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
manifestingsage.com
- manifestingsage.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Seercat3160 (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Seercat3160: 8 additions, 8 accounts:
- 105.112.213.55 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
- 116.251.168.162 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
- 151.19.70.134 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
- 152.58.57.180 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
- 78.136.209.81 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
- Aydantorr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
- Bashar309 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
- Leodas123123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
- The first account also mentions:
- thesecret.tv: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- club.tut.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- psychologytoday.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- Looks like a good candidate for blacklisting, warning was already ignored, and is clearly futile on these. --Dirk Beetstra 13:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
worldribus.org
- worldribus.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- Urlatherrke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
User added WP:QS, WP:SPS source worldribus.org into tens of article on December 26, 2024 and I'm just realizing this now a month later. All made as "minor edit". The edits are suggestive of promotional editing. Graywalls (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- God help Wikipedia. An editor called Graywalls actively campaigning against accuracy. This individual has the temerity to describe WorldRibus as a source that requires decontamination! It beggars belief. (Personal attack removed) Urlatherrke (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's concerning that you're inserting a specific website 300+ times even though nobody else cites that source into Wikipedia. As far as spam is concerned, even if the inserted sources are New York Times or Associated Press pieces, if a specific editor was shoehorning every NYT into articles somewhere hundreds of times, that's a concern too. Graywalls (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps I need to spell this out for you as you seem to be only dimly aware of the topic, preferring to flag things instead of looking into them, thereby wasting other people's time. The World Ribus database overs over 7000 peaks and includes prominence data for many mountains with pages on Wikipedia that have empty prominence information fields in their infoboxes. You know some of this because I see you decided to remove what is accurate prominence data and leave it blank again. So 300 is nothing when there are probably nearly 3000 pages on Wikipedia that could have their accuracy improved as a result of many years of meticulous research. If that's a concern, then the platform itself is not worth bothering with and should be actively warned against as a reliable source of mountain information. Urlatherrke (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:WINARS. Wikipedia isn't advertised as a reliable source. This being said.. @Beetstra:, I propose worldribus.org be added to blacklist given its simply a self published blog compilation of user generated contents that has been spammed 3oo plus times. Graywalls (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Go ahead, the end result is that Wikipedia is worse, less accurate, and folk look elsewhere for proper information. Editors like you seem to have that objective in mind! In reality you ought to be thanking us for improving the accuracy of the information on the platform but that would require both objectivity and emotional intelligence. Urlatherrke (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:WINARS. Wikipedia isn't advertised as a reliable source. This being said.. @Beetstra:, I propose worldribus.org be added to blacklist given its simply a self published blog compilation of user generated contents that has been spammed 3oo plus times. Graywalls (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps I need to spell this out for you as you seem to be only dimly aware of the topic, preferring to flag things instead of looking into them, thereby wasting other people's time. The World Ribus database overs over 7000 peaks and includes prominence data for many mountains with pages on Wikipedia that have empty prominence information fields in their infoboxes. You know some of this because I see you decided to remove what is accurate prominence data and leave it blank again. So 300 is nothing when there are probably nearly 3000 pages on Wikipedia that could have their accuracy improved as a result of many years of meticulous research. If that's a concern, then the platform itself is not worth bothering with and should be actively warned against as a reliable source of mountain information. Urlatherrke (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's concerning that you're inserting a specific website 300+ times even though nobody else cites that source into Wikipedia. As far as spam is concerned, even if the inserted sources are New York Times or Associated Press pieces, if a specific editor was shoehorning every NYT into articles somewhere hundreds of times, that's a concern too. Graywalls (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed that this appears to be promotional spamming, Urlatherrke also appears to be taking a strong battleground approach to editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not spam. 2. Horsey, you are the one of the biggest battlers out there and completely dismissive to boot. How many articles have you added to, and how many of your edits are simply policing others, often reducing the quality of the pages in the process? Perhaps you should look into getting a job in the real world where you can display genuine authority over other people as it seems to be a driving force which remains unfulfilled.
- Urlatherrke (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have added to well over 15,000 articles and if I had to guess 2-5% of my edits (~1,200-3,000 edits) have involved dealing with disruptive editing of one kind or another. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ribu HydroniumHydroxide 04:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- See also [1] where Urlatherke is adopting the same approach (i.e. Wikipedia is a joke, all the editors are idiots or worse, why should anyone follow any of the policies). Some form of sanction is required here. The user is just an uncivil WP:NOTHERE spammer unprepared to engage in civil policy-based discussion. Axad12 (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
ACP / "American Communist Party"
A group going by the name "ACP" is continuing to attempt to both spam the page for Communist Party USA as well as its Talk page insisting that an article be created for their "rival party" based solely on their invented "sources" (blog posts created by themselves) and on irrelevant information based around Jackson Hinkle, a member of the same group. They were already warned by multiple editors to stop the vandalism and yet they not only continue, but are soliciting help via User talk:NEET FEET and various Twitter/X posts for what they're calling "Operation Wikipedia: Restore The ACP" (https://x.com/Marbak0/status/1885817190135292123).
Note that screenshots from their planning for abuse are posted across X/Twitter as well (https://x.com/marxmidwestern/status/1885862261123604649).
Users include NEET_FEET (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) JakeTahirSmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) and ZFoster11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam). I have requested that the page for Communist Party USA be locked but at this point, moderators may need to step in and ban the users who continue to violate WP content policy. 69.113.236.98 (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- could you point to which policy I violated please? I am genuinely not trying to be rude, English is not my first language so I apologize if something I said came off as hostile JakeTahirSmith (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- == RE: ACP / "American Communist Party" ==
- @69.113.236.98 Your claim that users are "spamming" or "vandalizing" Wikipedia does not hold up under scrutiny. Discussing the potential notability of ACP and compiling sources for a possible Wikipedia article is not spam—it is standard editorial discussion.
- Several key points need to be addressed:
- 1️. Legitimacy of ACP as a Subject
- - ACP has been recognized by multiple international communist parties.
- - ACP has been mentioned in independent publications and analysis.
- - ACP has won a local election in Vermont, showing real-world political activity.
- 2️. No Violation of Wikipedia Policies
- - Wikipedia allows discussions on article creation when notability can be demonstrated (WP:N).
- - The talk page exists for discussing improvements to the article, and questioning the omission of ACP from CPUSA’s history is a valid content discussion.
- - There is no evidence of "fake sources" being used—only sources that are being evaluated under Wikipedia’s guidelines.
- 3️. Misrepresentation of Wikipedia's Content Policies
- - The deletion of ACP's page was based on an argument about lack of sources at the time—this does not mean the topic is permanently banned from Wikipedia.
- - Bringing up new sources and discussing whether an article meets Wikipedia’s inclusion standards is not spamming or vandalism.
- 4️ Bad-Faith Accusations and Misuse of Admin Resources
- - If any sources are unreliable, the proper way to handle them is through content discussion, not personal attacks or attempts to silence editors.
- - Accusing editors of coordinating off-site is speculative and not a valid reason for banning anyone. Wikipedia does not prohibit users from discussing sources elsewhere, as long as edits comply with Wikipedia’s verifiability and neutrality policies.
- - Attempting to shut down discussion by requesting page locks and bans without engaging in content discussion is itself disruptive behavior (WP:DISRUPT).
- Final Point:
- If ACP does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, it should be judged on the merits of its sources, not through blanket accusations and personal attacks. Instead of trying to block discussion, the proper course of action is to evaluate sources in good faith and allow neutral discussion on the matter.
- — NEET_FEET 01:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Did you use LLM to generate this comment for you? A09|(talk) 11:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- What you mean to say is that a key piece of CPUSA history, namely, half the chapters reconstituting the historical American Communist Party, is being suppressed and scrubbed from CPUSA's page by politically motivated admins. ZFoster11 (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- as youve been informed by multiple moderators, there are no reliable sources provided for this narrative of events to warrant inclusion into this article. Editors are expected to rely on reliable sources and present verifiable information. it isnt a grand conspiracy, your additions just dont meet the standards for inclusion. Leninscat (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)