Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam
Add topic(Redirected from Wikipedia:RSPAM)
Latest comment: 2 hours ago by A Frantic Turtle in topic Spam link in user's user and draft page
 |
When reporting spam, please use the appropriate template(s):
|
As a courtesy, please consider informing other editors if their actions are being discussed.
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: |
Suspicious new articles
[edit source]List of reports here. Remove transclusions when all finished to keep page readable.
Suspicious new articles (2026-07-11)
[edit source]2026-07-11: Break 0
[edit source]2026-07-11: Break 1
[edit source]2026-07-11: Break 2
[edit source]2026-07-11: Break 3
[edit source]2026-07-11: Break 4
[edit source]2026-07-11: Break 5
[edit source]2026-07-11: Break 6
[edit source]2026-07-11: Break 7
[edit source]Suspicious new articles (2026-06-20)
[edit source]2026-06-20: Break 0
[edit source]2026-06-20: Break 1
[edit source]2026-06-20: Break 2
[edit source]2026-06-20: Break 3
[edit source]2026-06-20: Break 4
[edit source]2026-06-20: Break 5
[edit source]2026-06-20: Break 6
[edit source]2026-06-20: Break 7
[edit source]2026-06-20: Break 8
[edit source]LtJoe redux
[edit source]I was told to report future cases here. Apologies for not using the {{Link summary}} etc. templates, but it took multiple days to make this table and I'm exhausted. Since no-one seems to care exactly what "type" of obfuscation the spam edits are using I won't bother explaining them; just note that the 00 ones are not obfuscated, and type 15 is new (2 citation templates in one <ref></ref>). The domain column links to Spamcheck this time.
Notes:
- Draft:Jacyn P. Heavens and Jacyn P. Heavens were created by LuxerDu (talk · contribs) after the first batch was blocked and after the global locks mentioned below; those pages can be deleted under G5.
- Povchoc made Special:Diff/70929248 to nlwiki adding paysafe-casinos.com in an obfuscated manner (13), and after got locked on April 8 as a
Long-term abuse
account; this also happened to Coresaril on the same day, who added metaedge.gg (12) instead. Both accounts were locked and locally (on nlwiki) blocked by xXBlackburnXx. - Edits and added
https://info.microkeeper.com.au/products/rostering-softwar; note the typo. by Apocaliptic Spore (talk · contribs) [sic] and by Uddent (talk · contribs) happened almost right after, on the same day (UTC), fixing the typo. Both edits were tagged Visual edit; both users created their own very simple user pages (like other LtJoe spampuppets); and both users have similar edit counts (around 50). At the same time however, Apocaliptic Spore has made edits that add sections (among other stuff) with edit summaries like(Added|Expanded) /* section_name */ section
, which is not characteristic of other sockpuppets; both users' edit counts are also far higher than average. Special:Diff/1308421546 by Apocaliptic replaces a Wayback Machine archive with archive.today, which is an archiving site LtJoe loves. I'm not sure what to make of that. - Should the SPI case be moved to one of the earlier accounts identified?
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unkinned had obviously LtJoe accounts (see for example from one of the accounts originally identified with a classic LtJoe obfuscation pattern, and also from another one of the accounts, which has the lesser known pattern of obnoxiously abbreviating the spam website name, so Wikibusines [sic] turns into "WBJournal", just like how in , CasinoNews turns into "CNews"; I guess this is to make the edit seem more legitimate at a quick glance); should this case be merged into LtJoe? Note that that case has accounts like Afis121 (talk · contribs) () that I have not included in the table above; thus, the accounts found and blocked at that SPI need to be checked also.
- Per spamcheck, there are many more edits adding the info.microkeeper.com.au domain, but I'm not sure they are LtJoe. They seem to be in the pattern of adding it as its own spammy citation, possibly with a wikilink, another citation, or minute copyedits bundled with the edit. It seems like "microkeeper.com.au" has contracted a different SEO group prior to LtJoe.[a]
- I have not reverted the edits listed yet (except one, for some reason). When you revert, feel free to change the red crosses
{{n}} to ticks 
{{y}}; if only the spam link is removed but the other changes are kept (not recommended), change it to a yellow tick 
{{mby}}. Also feel free to fix typos and other mistakes in the table above. Please do not add additional entries; reply instead. - Several of the domains/accounts mentioned here were recently reported on here, especially by Staraction. I have also independently identified xchief.com but have not included it in the table above as I assumed it would be handled in its dedicated thread (in the end the accounts were not blocked).
Notes2
- ↑ This may or not be related to another spam group I'm working on (slowly); see Special:Diff/1235714201, Special:Diff/1250254373, and Special:Diff/1289145612; note that while these sample edits are of gambling sites, the group I'm working on is NOT limited to gambling spam. If you want to follow along (or beat me to it), see Special:Diff/1221211847 (where I started) and run spamcheck on casinopertodemim.com. The connection to this one is tentative due to the absence of an edit summary for the microkeeper edits as compared to the aforementioned spam group. Based on that I'm wondering if 186.65.86.6 (talk · contribs)'s edit is really part of LtJoe or not.
(please do not ping on reply) OutsideNormality (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- This is great work. I'll take a deeper look shortly. I have notes on a couple of these accounts (especially those found in the Unkinned SPI) that I am willing to share privately with any spamhunter, SPI clerk, or administrator in good standing. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 05:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Some more, sorry for 'bumping' this thread (again, feel free to change the 's):
- winamillion.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • 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
- 888starz.co.ke: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • 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
- OutsideNormality (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- {{checkuser needed}} with fair warning: this is probably going to be annoying. Consistent with previous results, I expect many if not most of these accounts to be on proxies. However, CheckUser has revealed some interesting results with accounts that have been doing this kind of obfuscated spam (e.g. 1 & 2). Anyone who is working through this case should feel free to contact me on or off-wiki for behavioural analyses if necessary. In the meantime I'll get to cleaning up after some of these accounts... Staraction (talk · contribs) 22:39, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- Added the following links to BED (subject to change, feel free to add if you've processed any):
- bitcoinbetworldcup2026.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • 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
- zero1gaming.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • 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
- ...and per precedent, accounts that have been blocked as spammers with bad-faith obfuscation (subject to change, feel free to add if you've processed any):
- Novus28 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
- BMSimpsOn (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
- RayoXOscura (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
- Marie61177 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
- Sifiyi (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
- Andrs123 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
- SabreInSteppe (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
- Peon19 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
- Joshuabae (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
- Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 03:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oh boy. Ping me if I forget about this, but this might take a while. Giraffer (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, I nabbed a couple that are probably related to Unkinned. There is still a massive amount to be looked at though. Giraffer (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oh boy. Ping me if I forget about this, but this might take a while. Giraffer (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
- Added the following links to BED (subject to change, feel free to add if you've processed any):
Spam links in user's sandbox
[edit source]- Pallavibansode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · Edit filter search · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Google · StopForumSpam)
While sandbox can be used for testing, I believe that spam links are not allowed in sandbox? ~ Elisapoly (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
- I've gone for a G11 speedy delete request, which a reviewing admin may or may not agree with.
Probably not, because we allow a huge latitude with sandboxes — and rightly so.Nothing shows up on Spamcheck to suggest this is problematic yet, but if you think it might be in future, what I do is bookmark that Spamcheck link and drop by once every couple of weeks. If you see it getting active, report it here. Otherwise it's just someone who has been told by their boss to write an article for Wikipedia about them, and like all boss-driven absurd requirements will die away just as quickly as it bubbled into the boss's head in the first place. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 17:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)- Well, they have been deleted. Thank you for your effort XD ~ Elisapoly (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
Spammy page but without links
[edit source]- Robbi Promotional (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · Edit filter search · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Google · StopForumSpam)
They create very spammy page but without any links (blocked by AF perhaps). Does this need speedy deletion too? ~ Elisapoly (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Elisapoly I've blocked & deleted -- these can go to WP:UAA as "promotional username, promotional edits" in future. Best, Staraction (talk · contribs) 06:21, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
Spam link in user's user and draft page
[edit source]- JohnDaWalka87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · Edit filter search · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · blacklist hits · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Google · StopForumSpam)
- coinpoker.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • 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
- leaksnipe.win: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • 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 posting spam links in their userpage and draft page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisapoly (talk • contribs) 07:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- I've requested a spam/LLM speedy on their draft. coinpoker.com appears to be legit, or at least has a couple of edits on Spamcheck using it as a source by editors in good standing. I can't see why we'd ever link to leaksnipe.com, but there's no spamming of it on Spamcheck. Both might be worth discussing on the external links noticeboard or on the reliable sources noticeboard but unless this account returns with more or worse, there's not much to do on this board I believe. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 17:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)