Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,848 answers , 20,603 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
501 active unimported users
More ...

Was this spam faked, and if so, by whom?

+ 2 like - 2 dislike
262 views

I got a string of what I initially thought were elaborately faked emails from Dimension10, claiming to show the other three other administrators in an actual Byzantine plot to plant this obviously fake spam message:

Welcome to 變速器! 變速器 a revolutionarry reformulation of solar wi-fi transmission! See for more knowledge on solarwifitransmission-reformulate.cn!

It's fake because the Chinese "transmission" is all wrong, it's the transmission of a car, not the transmission of electromagnetic waves. When I saw it, I was sure Dilaton wrote it. But in the email dimension10 says he wrote it. Who the heck wrote this nonsense? Who knew about it? Also, are we living in a tawdry novel?

asked Jan 29, 2015 in Conflict Resolution by Ron Maimon (7,535 points) [ revision history ]
recategorized Apr 2, 2015 by dimension10

The spam is fake, and Dim10 says he wrote it. I can't imagine anyone writing fake spam, it's the most elaborate ridiculousness I have ever seen, but there it is. Stop downvoting it and answer the question please. The question "who faked this spam?" is four words that I am sure have never been strung together in this precise order in the entire history of the English language.

2 Answers

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

What? I didn't "show any admins in a "byzantine plot"".

The answer to your question can be found here. The spam comment is not fake, it was certainly real. Unfortunately, nobody remembers the exact comment, but it did contain the words "reformulation", "revolutionarry" (with the mis-spelling), something about "see more knowledge", the same url, and chinese characters which translated to "transmission" on Google Translate.

Yes, the original post forgot to mention that the exact phrasing of the comment is forgotten, so I edited it in (but not after you "pointed it out", maybe after you read it, in fact, you "pointed it out" only after I told you about it).

Edit: Here's the email discussion Ron talks about, in brief, if anyone wants to judge for themselves:

polarkernel - Is it a lie that it was really the spam filter which deleted the comments of VK? If not, do you have the actual spam comment that "reformulation" mention with you?

me - No, it was certainly the spam filter. I remember having placed "reformulation" in the censored words box myself, alongside the url (...), some chinese characters translating to transmission, and the funny word "revolutionarry". Do you or Dilaton have a copy of the exact comment?

Dilaton - Nope : ( I only have vague memories of it

me - Piecing together what I recall, the comment would have looked something like this: blablabla. @polarkernel You should include this in your answer. I will mention that reformulation was in the spam filter (I added it), because Ron doesn't trust Dilaton or you for some reason.

It wasn't dishonest, at least there was no intention of it being dishonest. I think Ron is simply over-reading it, that there was some "byzantine plan".

Admittedly, I probably used words like "fake" which triggered off Ron's "dishonest alarm". But seriously, if I were dishonest, would I have forwarded it to Ron?

answered Jan 29, 2015 by dimension10 (1,950 points) [ revision history ]
edited Jan 29, 2015 by dimension10
Most voted comments show all comments

Are those emails actually real? You say things like "ok, I'm the only one Ron trusts, so I'll say this and that" and so on and so on. What part of TELL THE TRUTH BLUNTLY is lost on you people? Are you even pretending to be physicists? This type of honesty is second-nature to all physicists, how can you possibly write a fake spam? So your answer to "I am worried this spam filter was manipulated with" was to justify it by writing fake spam? That's going to built trust!

@RonMaimon I remember adding "reformulation" alongside the other phrases such as the url very well. As I said, there was a Chinese phrase in the comment, and it google-translated to "transmission", so the phrase in the comment is a reconstruction, that's all. You're over-reading - I was just explaining why "transmission" translates incorrectly.

@RonMaimon As I said, some emails were missed from my forwarding, and I've already stated them to you. You misinterpreted the "put reformulation in the censored words field" comment, too. As I said, it was really me who added it there, but I should be the one admitting that I put it there, and not polarkernel directly in the answer, because you would get cynical if polarkernel or Dilaton did so.

PolarKernel's answer is still completely true.

@Ron As I've told you, "in case he checks" referred to the fact that I was sure that you'd make the big deal of the fact that there are still some other words in the spam filter (from other spammers). As for the rest, I've replied to that enough.
All right, my mind is totally at ease, and I'll remove the downvote on your moderation. But next time you coordinate, please include me in your coordination. I am sick of having to figure out what the heck is going on by detective work.
Most recent comments show all comments
@RonMaimon The silent edit button was checked by accident, sorry for that.

I suppose I understand how bad and dishonest it looks to you (especially because I incorrectly used words like "fake" in the emails, and more importantly because some emails were just missed out), but I'm not lying, to you, to myself, or whoever (I know there's no way I can convince you of this). The spam was not fake, I got out whatever I could recall from the real comment.

Actually, the "box" (quote boxes) were added by me to the answer, a little before adding that it's reconstructed.

(I'm not the downvoter)

Since you are paraphrasing the discussion, I would prefer if you just posted it in its entirety. The most innocent parts are approximately what you said, but there was more--- in particular the discussion of how to edit the spam-filter keywords "in case he checks" (he meaning me), who should take credit for the insertion ("I'll do it, I'm the only one he trusts..."), and which chinese phrase to use ("I added this chinese from google translate..."). Since I had just managed to deduce myself that the phrase was gotten from google translate (somewhat laboriously, as it was the traditional character-set and the default is simplified), I thought you were making fun of me for suspecting it was faked. By faking forwarded discussion, which were my worse paranoid fears come true regarding the three of you conspiring together to write a fake spam. I guess not. I guess you three were plotting together deciding what to write to fool me. What a treat.

+ 3 like - 1 dislike

I've got a feeling this spam is connected somehow with physicsoverflow.com. Yes, that site really exists and has nothing to do with this one.

Translate the page into English and it's incoherent jibberish in the style of the spam message, although that might be a quirk of the translation software itself, but I doubt it. We really need to be asking who owns this other site, and why did they set it up in the first place?

answered Jan 29, 2015 by physicsnewbie (-20 points) [ revision history ]
edited Jan 29, 2015 by physicsnewbie
But physicsoverflow.com is in Japanese, not Chinese.
@dimension10 hmm, good point; could be just a bizarre coincidence then. The site was created 28/4/14; when was the first Chinese spam email received?
@physicsnewbie I don't remember when it's from... I'm pretty sure that physicsoverflow.com existed before 28/4/2014, I remember it was already present when we were discussing the creation of this site on TRF.

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar\varnothing$sicsOverflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...