Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam

	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}} - to report spam domains: {{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.
	Click here to start a new report

Indicators
Reports completed:
Done
No action
Stale
Defer discussion:
Defer to XLinkBot
Defer to Local blacklist
Defer to Global blacklist
Defer to Abuse filter
Information:
Additional information needed
Note:

Suspicious new articles

List of reports here. Remove transclusions when all finished to keep page readable.

---

143.44.169.184

143.44.169.184 (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)

Editor is one in a series of IP editors from the Philippines who are disruptively editing articles on king crabs (Lithodidae) for seemingly no reason. Mitch Ames and I are constantly having to revert their garbage, and they even directly reference this months-long, ongoing issue with their first edit and edit summary, where they vandalize the article Neolithodes by calling it a "genus of Mitch Ames" and summarize the edit as "Mitch Ames, come here." Unambiguously the same sort of spammer that's been blocked here before. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27 not exactly spam in the sense this board is set up for but do you have any other recent IPs? I'm happy to look into it but you'll have to tell me where to look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Hi, HJ, sorry I came to the wrong board. I've only got the one right now, which is 143.44.169.184, as all the past ones that I know of have since been blocked. They always seem to be affiliated with since-blocked sockpuppets like Michael2176, and I genuinely have no idea why this person is on the warpath about these niche crab articles. I've checked my watchlist and haven't seen anything else like this recently (although I really need to declutter that thing). This editor seems to pop up just every once in a while since spring 2024 to make disruptive changes to articles. And the weird thing is that they sometimes seem like they genuinely want to advance these articles (for example, they did make semi-accurate edits recently that needed some touching up), but at the same time their edits often constitute extremely obvious synthesis, baseless original research, or factual inaccuracies that need correction and copy-editing (and sometimes they're just outright vandalism). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, actually, HJ Mitchell, the username Michael 281818 recently edited Neolithodes and fits the exact same name pattern as the previous accounts editing this hyper-niche topic also with the name 'Mike' or 'Michael' followed by a bunch of numbers (e.g. Michael2176 and its various sockpuppets). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That's something to go on. I can run a check on those and see if I can find a range to block or something else that might work. Leave it with me for 24-48 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I had a quick look through my edits/reversions on everything under Category:King crabs, and came up with the list of editors who I have reverted:

• 1.37.86.159 (talk · contribs)
• 112.198.112.167 (talk · contribs)
• 112.198.112.172 (talk · contribs)
• 112.198.112.180 (talk · contribs)
• 112.198.112.226 (talk · contribs)
• 112.198.67.34 (talk · contribs)
• 112.198.86.110 (talk · contribs)
• 143.44.169.164 (talk · contribs)
• 143.44.169.184 (talk · contribs)
• 143.44.169.204 (talk · contribs)
• 2001:FD8:1740:8C63:63BB:AB7F:C406:4FE8 (talk · contribs)
• Metty10001 (talk · contribs)
• Michael 281818 (talk · contribs)
• Michael10020 (talk · contribs)
• Michael2176 (talk · contribs)
• Mole crabby (talk · contribs)

It's not necessarily 100% correct, and some of these have already been blocked, but it may help this investigation. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

And a new one:

• Michael espellogo (talk · contribs)

Mitch Ames (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024 Cannaspam

• https://t.me/cerianberigam: 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
• https://t.me/cannabiscollectives: 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
• Cannabis collective (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)

Repeated spamming of links under t.me. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bri account blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

iwillhelpyou.nl

• iwillhelpyou.nl: 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

ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Mhm.  Done I have reverted their additions. I'll leave the blocking to admins. A09|(talk) 21:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

"Recover lost crypto"

• hackathontechsolution.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
• Katherinemayli (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) this user has been advertising a website to help with stolen crypto. - OpalYosutebito (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

   Warned by Knitsey, all edits reverted. A09|(talk) 21:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Possible academic boosterism ref spamming

• Polynesia2024 (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) this user has been adding contents in bulk with journal citations in a way that seems strange into multiple articles. No edit summary and large chunks added at a time, for example, like this Special:Diff/1252928102 and Special:Diff/1253312851

It's important enough that journal citations in Wiki are tracked by some services. https://oxfordjournals.altmetric.com/details/5012596/wikipedia Scholars don't consider Wikipedia as a reliable source on its own, but researchers are regularly encouraged to use Wikipedia as a source finder for their academic research, so there's a motive to have work cited in Wikipedia articles with the hope of those work being cited in other scholarly articles.Does this look like academic boosterism activity? Graywalls (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem if academics are happy that their peer-reviewed journal articles are being used as a source on Wikipedia. It's one thing if some fringe 'academic' has a new Theory Of Everything that they uploaded to ResearchGate and want to spam here; I'm all-in for removing that. But this user seems to be using well-cited peer-reviewed articles in a variety of fields, so I don't think it's a concern on that basis.

However...based on their adding thousands of bytes of content within minutes of previous large additions, and the format of the content, this seems more like someone testing an AI that summarizes academic sources (and fortunately, afaict, doesn't seem to fake them). For example, this section is basically a series of article summaries with section titles and a few transitional phrases. They added that section in a span of <5 minutes with 3 edits to that section, adding 3.3k, 5.9k, and 5.2k bytes respectively. The second edit, in the minute after the first, reworded much of the first edit's additions as well as adding multiple new paragraphs of content. It would be best for Polynesia2024 to comment on this. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 19:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Also being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_AI_Cleanup#AI_account.

Checked a couple of this user's edit and it appears that at least some of their citations are to stuff that doesn't exist at all. See their edits at Grand Canal d'Alsace and Environmental governance. Flounder fillet (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The impression I had was that the bot is working as an Editing as a Service on behalf of authors, scholars to increase citations of sources down the road. Shoehorning sources for reference promotion purposes is a thing. Whether it's in production or in testing phase, who knows. Good checking. I left another warning on the account. Graywalls (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Found similar problems in hotel article with permanent dead links, fake NYT link and so forth. I checked Archive.org and no hit there either, so I removed it. Special:Diff/1253461633 Graywalls (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

::::This discussion appears to be a red herring, potentially redirecting focus for reasons that remain unclear. Rapid content additions may simply reflect varied work styles, such as pasting pre-written texts into the editor, which doesn't inherently signal spam or promotional activity, especially when the sources are reputable and conform to Wikipedia's standards for verifiable, well-sourced content. Dead links are a common issue across many Wikipedia articles, often stemming from translation inconsistencies, formatting, or wikicode link issues. Clarification from the initiator on their motivations would be constructive, as this could foster a more transparent and well-intended discussion. 2A02:C7C:EC31:4200:5935:4048:17E1:63F9 (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC) Struckout WP:LOUTSOCK Graywalls (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

^ GPT Zero says 100% AI. Graywalls (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

::::::It could have been a linguistic proofreading. Provide evidence that the content is wrong (which you have not thus far), then you would have a viable argument. 185.137.36.88 (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC) Struckout WP:LOUTSOCK Graywalls (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

80.192.214.54 / nosmokeboxing.com

• 80.192.214.54 (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)
• nosmokeboxing.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

User was warned for adding spammy external links (all to the same website) earlier this year, which I didn't see before giving them an additional level 1 warning today. Reverted their edits myself, but not sure if there are additional actions that should be taken since they've been warned for this previously and made a handful of these spammy edits since that warning. (Not too familiar with the process here.) Jokullmusic 03:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)