Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Aug

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

webtv-club.com tv-cb.com

others added

beelinetv.com Adsense pub-9431779393804571
wwitv.com Adsense pub-1964102517134879

Spam sock accounts

Scorpion de soleil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
91.18.185.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
91.18.185.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
91.18.150.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
91.18.196.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
91.18.129.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 04:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't stopped:
Cross-wiki stuff, too:
Will request blacklisting. --A. B. (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See: meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#webtv-club.com tv-cb.com (Permanent link) --A. B. (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

geocities adsense spammer

Adsense pub-2937643756097554
http://www.geocities.com/ww2_pictures/ *** http://www.geocities.com/dieppe_berlin/ *** http://www.geocities.com/lindsaylohanphotos/ ***

Spam sock accounts

69.140.199.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
69.250.24.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
68.49.19.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 06:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specific rules added to COIBot, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/geocities.com (will be created when links are added). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry's Phat Page

Am I justified in removing these links? --NE2 00:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly justified to remove these. Appears to be COI spam, not really a notable page, I think. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.beingahuman.blogspot.com

beingahuman.blogspot.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

Spammers

See also WP:ANI#Blatant linkspammer and self promoter needs blocking. MER-C 02:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.scifipedia.scifi.com

scifipedia.scifi.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

Spammers

COI spamming, but may have encyclopedic value. MER-C 06:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.oasisfanatic.com

oasisfanatic.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

Spammers

MER-C 06:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

We would like to get input on the appropriateness of an external link in the article on Straw-bale construction. There is discussion here and a poll here. Comments prior to August 3, 2007 would be appreciated. Thanks. see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jul#http:.2F.2Fspam.naturalhomes.org--Hu12 11:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Porn linkspam (various sites)

Spammers

Videmus Omnia Talk 21:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-wiki spam:
--A. B. (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joe animator

Spam and coi problems that I don't have time to follow up at the moment. --Ronz 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More appropriate at WP:COIN I think. Subject seems notable, but needs cleanup for style. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crossposted: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Tj_galda --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Ronz 17:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Edrawing

Another spam & coi case. --Ronz 05:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Dirk Beetstra T C 09:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Ronz 17:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Internet Services spam on Wikipedia

Whois registration:

Tim Kennett, trading as Evergreen Internet Services
The Old Cwm Mainstone,
Bishops Castle
SALOP
SY9 5NA
GB

Spam domains

Also owned by Evergreen Internet Services:

Accounts (partial list):

Blacklist request:

--A. B. (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spa015

Another spam case. Probably coi too. --Ronz 05:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sport results spam

Sites spammed

http://spam.resultsfromtennis.com

resultsfromtennis.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

http://spam.4mula1.ro

4mula1.ro: 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

http://spam.labtof.ro

labtof.ro: 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

http://spam.resultsfromfootball.com

resultsfromfootball.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
Spammers

Might have encyclopedic value, judging by the amount of links (0, 50, 15, 34 respectively). MER-C 07:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.olyblog.net

olyblog.net: 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

Spammers

MER-C 07:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.airliners.net

Not fully investigated, there may be more accounts or similar links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a ton of different people are adding these links, including myself. --A. B. (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. So it is a usefull link, too bad this user is spamming it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Bitencourt - bitencourt.net bossanovamusic.net

User 212.17.64.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is pushing links to www.bossanovamusic.net (earlier bitencourt.net) and has a history of mainly adding links (and deleting some others). After blacklisting of bossanovamusic.net on shadowbot the user switched to the old link bitencourt.net (also blacklisted)

212.17.64.245 is an IP in Vienna, user admits that s/he is travelling, and will probably change IP when s/he is in another place. The bots are watching. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Bossanovamusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiorano Software spam on Wikipedia

This has been an ongoing PR effort on Wikipedia for over 18 months.

Links:

Accounts:

  1. Sanjayakumarsahu (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
  2. Webteam fiorano (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • fiorano LinkWatcher search • Google)
  3. Fiorano Software (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • Software LinkWatcher search • Google)
  4. 61.95.199.88 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
  5. Fioranoweb (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
  6. Sanjaya fiorano (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • fiorano LinkWatcher search • Google)
  7. 202.142.98.7 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
  8. Sanjaya123 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
  9. Fiorano123 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
  10. Itpl fiorano (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • fiorano LinkWatcher search • Google)

Spam articles created as blatant advertising and deleted by Wikipedia administrators:

Articles vandalized:

Firoano Software's notability: A Google search on "fiorano software" -ferrari -modenese -samsonite -modena

--A. B. (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have some salt over here please? MER-C 05:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blacklist request:
--A. B. (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Later links:
  1. m:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/08#Fiorano Software spam
  2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Fiorano Software (again) (permanent link)
  3. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fioranoweb (2nd)
  4. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fioranoweb (3rd)
  5. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Fioranoweb
  6. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Dealing with some extremely persistent spammers (permanent link)
--A. B. (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thai-sexygirls and their friends

Cross-wiki spam:

Accounts:


Spammed domains:


Affiliated domains:


Registrants:

  • Chaikamon Yasang
207 moo1 chedeechai
pua, NA 55120
TH
  • Adsense ID: 6137766246698896
  • Chainupon Yasaeng
207 Moo1 Cheedechai
Pua Nan, NA 55120
TH
  • Adsense ID: 9108187233191197

References:

--A. B. (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Catapult Communications and Technology, LLC. (marketing SEO)

accounts

68.118.104.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
68.118.106.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
216.203.118.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 03:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

http://spam.quantifisolutions.com

Spam sock accounts

Rdouglas2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
70.21.133.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
141.150.23.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 05:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

http://spam.financialmathematics.com

Spam sock accounts

66.65.181.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 05:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

http://spam.creditflux.com

Article Creditflux

Spam sock accounts

Publisher@creditflux.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
81.137.233.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.55.29.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
63.121.17.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 05:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

canvasguru.com

(crossposted from User:AntiSpamBot/Blacklist_requests

Inserted by Canvasguru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Link search: Special:Linksearch/www.canvasguru.com

--Ad@m.J.W.C. 09:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W. W. Norton & Company http://spam.wwnorton.com

Article W. W. Norton & Company

Spam sock accounts

Jchatter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Peter simon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sansdude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 16:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

http://spam.sloanreview.mit.edu

Article MIT Sloan Management Review

Spam sock accounts

Debgall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
CCALLSMR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
CLCSMR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Venkatraman101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mh 007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
18.57.1.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.3.96.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 17:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam(DOT)illvminati(DOT)org

Article Illvminati, Illuminati

Spam sock accounts

NewWorldOrder205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I L L V M I N A T I (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Magisteriu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A series of SPA's are being used to add this link to various articles. Having looked at the link it is a commercial link selling consultations with the "real Illuminati". There is no informational or educational value of this link and given the throwaway accounts adding it, I've blacklisted it.--Isotope23 talk 19:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

allhealth.org - lots of spam today

Looks like spam to me, would someone please look at - I don't have time for a few days to clean these up, thanks.

--CliffC 21:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All reverted/removed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --CliffC 03:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question About My Account

Out of boredom I was browsing what linked to my page and I found this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/muppet.wikia.com. I'm not exactly sure why this happened. The edit I was doing was reverting someone else's vandalism of the whole article? Did I just get put up on some kind of spamwatch? -WarthogDemon 00:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its monitoring who adds this particular link for any possible conflict of interests, of which you do not have (obviously). You shouldn't worry. Additions such as this, this and this to muppet.wikia.com, by Toughpigs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who actualy is the founder of http://muppet.wikia.com[4], is a concern for WP:COI.--Hu12 03:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you got caught there by a mistaken rule (COIBot tries to catch links reported to this page and then monitors them, as well as links that get added under a suspected COI, but something went wrong in the beginning when I programmed that functionality). I have deleted the original report, whitelisted you, and regenerated a new report. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) Though I don't think it's quite correct. It seems to have whitelisted "Warthogdemon" instead of "WarthogDemon" unless it counts both. Anyways, glad to have helped by accidentally getting caught for someone else's spam. :) -WarthogDemon 16:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.ohashiatsu.org

Spam sock accounts

Ohashiatsu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
68.175.95.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 03:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

http://spam.yinyanghouse.com and http://spam.12stringblues.com

Adsense pub-7652768657525088

Spam sock accounts

Yinyanghouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
68.53.224.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 03:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

prowrestlingsyndicate

COI Spam:

add future wrestling events with a non-specific reference (to the mainpage of prowrestlingsyndicate.com) as 'source'. It feels more like promoting the event than adding content.

All additions have been cleaned, one main-space link left, which is also a non-specific reference (to the domain), but I don't think it is the same user who added it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Adsense pub-4644109830702065

Spam sock accounts
Spam sock accounts

CollectorGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Cutieiona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
172.196.0.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Nyqco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
172.190.149.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
172.144.135.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
209.247.22.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
209.244.31.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
172.193.114.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
172.191.41.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
67.124.37.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 09:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.ibizaa-z.com

Spam sock accounts

Adeibiza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 13:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Spamming of http://spam.arhp.org

[5]

Spam sock accounts

Jriessman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Valbaugh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
69.3.2.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 16:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

http://spam.infoforhealth.org

Spam sock accounts

Stephen Goldstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 19:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

http://spam.lunarpages.com

Spam sock accounts

Janyajones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.38.195.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 19:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

Lunarpages
Joseph "Joe" Whyte
Joseph "joe" whyte
Seo team

More Accounts

Lunarpages (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • user page logs • x-wiki • status • Edit filter search • Google • StopForumSpam •
WebHostingGirL (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • user page logs • x-wiki • status • Edit filter search • Google • StopForumSpam •
PS801 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • user page logs • x-wiki • status • Edit filter search • Google • StopForumSpam •
Jwhyte (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • user page logs • x-wiki • status • Edit filter search • Google • StopForumSpam •
Believingoctober (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • user page logs • x-wiki • status • Edit filter search • Google • StopForumSpam •
222.122.180.224 (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)
--Hu12 (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Adsense pub-0680802445576279

Spam sock accounts

201.165.5.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
71.137.212.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
71.137.215.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 04:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

http://spam.mycellphoneblog.com

Adsense pub-7462300477816423

Spam sock accounts

Hufferbomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
70.252.167.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 05:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

undertheradarmag.com

Conflict of interest and Spamming sites:

--Dirk Beetstra T C 06:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.resourcesinpeople.com

Spam/COI accounts

This is an employment agency and a closely-linked private currency seller/creator. The three accounts have added text and their ELs into Career, Career management, Private currency, and so on. So far they have created two special articles all their own, which I speedy deleted:

I'm sure they'll be back. -- KrakatoaKatie 08:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

diffen.com

For the record:

--Dirk Beetstra T C 08:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://virtualuffizi.com (pulled from July archive)

mass additions of this link by

Sophruhig Vita@comcast.net (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 10:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also noted adding associatedcontent.com[6][7][8][9][10] by jason_cangialosi and [11] by IP 67.176.73.133. Another from a colorado comcast IP [12] by 24.9.186.26 and 67.190.117.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) adding all jason_cangialosi articles--Hu12 10:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
user:Sophruhig Vita@comcast.net is now adding/repairing links in documents:

(This text is taken from the Uffizi Gallery website, available under Creative Commons License.)<ref>"Pieter Codde", Virtual Uffizi, 2007, <www.virtualuffizi.com/biography/Pieter%2DCodde.htm></ref>

In this case the page linked to does not contain text, but in other cases the text is indeed similar.
I am inclined to remove all these links, it is a concealed form of linkspam/promotional additions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)(refactored --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
User has left a note on my talkpage. I guess the site is OK, but the way it is referenced may have to change. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is good to see that detailed attention is focused on stopping spam, but I ask you to please look at the context of the additions I've made here. These edits/additions are on artists and painters, whose works are housed in a long established center of art in Florence, Italy, the Uffizi Gallery, the www.virtualuffizi.com link is connected to their webpage, which contains a large resource of biographical information on many painters and their works. Some of the pages I've added to Wikipedia are taken from the Creative Commons license given to their website content on artists, or it cites information or links to images of paintings. This is done on many pages on wikipedia, where an entry on an artist links to images in the museums that house their works. What's the problem? The site is connected to a cultural institution, it is not a some random art site that is selling prints of work. Please stop the warnings - saying links to the Uffizi Gallery are spam on pages about artists, is like saying links to the Vatican is like spam on pages about Popes. Thanks. Sophruhig Vita 10:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is important to address the concerns, not just ask us to stop. I would suggest that instead of a general reference that specific parts that are referenced by the text on virtualuffizi are specifically referenced to that text. Copyvio of the text may still have to be addressed elsewhere, information about that can probably be found under the copyright policy.
Concerning spam, spam is not only defined as linking to sites which sell things (which is often even OK!), but the way it gets added (mainly link additions to external links sections; such additions do not improve the wikipedia). For your account I do see that you do add a lot of content, so that is OK. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inapropriate entries and additions such as this,this,this,thisthis,this,this,this,this,this and this example;

In the above example is the same as signing an article. and serves no other purpose tha to promote the Uffizi Website Spamming is about promoting your own site or a site you love, not always about commercial sites. Links to commercial sites are often appropriate. Links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote a site are not.--Hu12 13:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting WP:AWB and will clean these links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the disclaimers. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dds.dekaja.net

Spammed and edited by several IPs in the 172.128.0.0/10 range (America Online, Dulles, VA, US) to a series of video games. Users also have a tendency to change from UK-EN to US-EN. dds.dekaja.net is a forum site.

Users:

User:COIBot is watching \bdekaja\.net, there may be other forums there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

http://spam.ringindia.net http://spam.indiancallcenterz.com

Spam sock accounts

Web ring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
61.246.6.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
58.68.111.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 15:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

palmbeachpreservation.org

Also 'spamming' wikilinks to 'see also' sections. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, a sockpuppet (?) turned up shortly after: Sleepheads78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused at what the problem is here. Have i done somethign wrong?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepheads78 (talk • contribs)

Your edits show a great overlap with special:contributions/Pbpreservation, which leads us to believe that you are a sockpuppet of that account (i.e. you are the same person). The former account was pushing promotional edits to several pages. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the same. If my links are a problem I will delete them, but Preservation is a real organization. The Flagler Whitehall Museum has similar links on their wiki page and they seem to have received no problem. I am trying ot give teh foundation a wiki page so people know wht it is.


May I try again???


Anyone there?? Anyone at work???Sleepheads78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You can use this account. I will give you a {{welcomeg}} shortly, I would like you to read the policies and guidelines linked in there (especially the conflict of interest guideline, the spam guideline, the external links guideline, and our neutral point of view policy).
Regarding the other pages. Yes, we know that there may be pages which are similar, but that is not a reason to do the same. Please note that we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. I noted that the page you created is probably notable, so I only tagged it as such, it does need independent citations to show its notability, and may have a copy-edit by another editor to assure its neutrality (and I am sure you can assist there, e.g. with suggestions on the talkpage). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly.

Big font spammer is back

This time with a joola site:

<p style="font-size: 10in; left: -50px; width: 100%; position: absolute; top: -50px; height: 100%; font-color: transparent">[http://ximutufiz.joolo.com/]</p>

Is this text enabled somewhere on a anti-vandal-bot? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spam.lagalaxy.tv

ccwaters 19:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

http://spam. ufomagazine.net

Spam sock accounts

Kingspod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
76.25.167.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
131.15.48.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
131.15.48.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
76.25.137.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 19:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

India related link additions - india-crafts.com

Account almost exclusively used for link additions; most links are to india-crafts.com:

Links:

--Dirk Beetstra T C 10:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

promotional additions for Dr. Gary Berger http://spam.tubal-reversal.net

→ See also: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#promotional_additions_for_Dr._Gary_Berger User:CHTRCwebmaster/Sandbox

Spam sock accounts

CHTRCwebmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Gsberger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Brykat73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Benwalsh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
70.232.102.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
70.144.190.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
74.227.105.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
64.105.227.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 11:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.bluesummers.com

bluesummers.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

Spammers

MER-C 13:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

microdermabrasioninfo4u.com and others on Microdermabrasion

This link gets pushed by a series of IPs. The last addition was accompanied by the remark "link added back in - excess income donated to wiki by site as not for profit spelling will be checked and more chains will be added". The page Microdermabrasion seems to be a willing target for spammers.

I guess these are independent sets:

Number 1:

users:

Number 2:

users:

Number 3:

users:

Number 4:

users:

Number 5:

users:

I may have missed some here, I have the page on my watchlist now. I noticed that some of the IPs also target other pages. For some of the links I would recommend direct blacklisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

krakow-info.com

Crosspost from User:AntiSpamBot/Blacklist_requests

www.krakow-info.com

Inserted by various IP addressess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Link search: Special:Linksearch/www.krakow-info.com

users (last 5):

83.29.0.0/16 is Neostrada Plus, Krakow, PL (Poland). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

globalraptors.org

users:

Site may be useful, but gets spammed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User has left a message on my talkpage, I guess this issue is resolved. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tradefederation.tv

adds link

User has left a message on my talkpage, though is still adding the link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

somethingsite.com

81.155.225.76 is adding links to pages which end in site.com or moving them to the top of the list. Some of these were added earlier.

users:

These additions/alterations cleaned. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


http://spam.panoramicearth.com

panoramicearth.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

Spammers

MER-C 11:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.landlordexpert.co.uk http://spam.thelandlordassociation.co.uk

landlordexpert.co.uk: 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
thelandlordassociation.co.uk: 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
worldofrenewables.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

Spammers

MER-C 11:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.bondvideos.net

bondvideos.net: 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

Spammers

MER-C 13:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

miqtest.com & ivyiqtest.com

Spamming after several warnings over the last months.

users: IvyIQTest100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Dirk Beetstra T C 14:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiva (organization)

Any opinions on this article?--Hu12 15:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with {{notability}}. Only one reference that does not point to kiva.org. Could use some independent references. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a MIX Market reference. Claiming Kiva is spam is a bit much. RichardF 16:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some WP:SPA accounts that appear to have conflict of interests.

Have you even looked at the references? They're pertinent to the statements. RichardF 19:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just scanned the above list for their contributions. I wonder if you did. They're basically relevant image uploads, factual updates (those spamolicous references) and copyedits. RichardF 19:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one has tagged Kiva as spam. This is a discussion page. So far it appears it does need more independent references, as it has quite a few self citing references. Some monotoring for COI edits may be needed, as those above accounts verify there have been WP:COI edits in the past.--Hu12 21:02, 3 August 2007(UTC)

Astral projection

74.76.24.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is repeatedly spamming the same link. How do I get them blocked? IPSOS (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets monitor. --Beetstra public 20:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.hostinglair.com

Spam sock accounts

193.198.171.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
195.29.109.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
195.29.105.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 18:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

http:// spam. lang. arabe. free. fr/index_uk.php

OK, thanks for your answer. You are the master here. But I just want to say it is not a spam link as you say, it's good work. But I love Wikipedia even if you don't like my site at all.

And I apologize for all the trouble I cause you, sorry it was for a good reason, but you didn't understand. I wanted to make civilization talk together... with a "French touch".

I will do what you tell me to : that is to comment on the blacklisting talk page.

Bye and best regards from France. (I hope you are not too angry about me, I did it with GOOD FAITH).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanfrancisco31 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.barcoderobot.com

Spammer

This account has about 50 edits so far. About half of them are inserting various links to spam sites. He has made a few worthwhile contributions, for example to GS1. No helpful response to any of my comments to him that his links are unwanted. I assume that posting to WP:AIV is not appropriate since this is not strictly a spam-only account. EdJohnston 03:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the WP:COI additions made--Hu12 09:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.poker-vs-poker.cn

Adsense 2463099552737230

Spam sock accounts

VSPokerking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
219.236.162.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 10:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.tradebit.com http://spam.jamies-music.com http://spam.bigfataudio.com

tradebit.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
jamies-music.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
bigfataudio.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

Spammers

MER-C 10:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These IP have added to "MP3 A lil' Heroes Christmas - POP: with Live-band Production" (tradebit.com/filedetail.php/1739928)
212.107.116.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
212.107.116.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
212.107.116.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
212.107.116.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 10:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Essentialy these are not links suitable for an encyclopedia--Hu12 11:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted spamming

Sites spammed

http://spam.bestdubai.net

bestdubai.net: 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

http://spam.gotu.info

gotu.info: 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

http://spam.go2mykonos.com

go2mykonos.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

http://spam.online-dates.org

online-dates.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

http://spam.internetphonereview.net

internetphonereview.net: 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

http://spam.talk-spanish.net

talk-spanish.net: 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
Spammers

MER-C 12:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

3rd opinion request

User Michael Pocock (talk · contribs) seems to exaggerate a bit in adding EL’s to his website (www.maritimequest.com), 513 now in total. Though there’s some clear WP:COI, most of the links seem to be on topic and the site doesn’t carry adverts. What would be the appropriate action here? Leave it be, inform the user about our policies and guidelines or cleanup? Van helsing 06:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-coi}} may be appropriate here. MER-C 08:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
heh, I used a {{uw-spam1}} and a further explanation. Guess this needs cleaning
--Dirk Beetstra T C 08:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the user has only added the external links I am cleaning these. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it’s the only thing he has done since June 2005, coinciding with the moment upon which his page view stats start to grow rapidly. He has also added links to websites of people mentioned on his website contributions list, to a lesser extent though, 46 EL's for bismarck-class.dk for example. --Van helsing 09:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

by:

--Dirk Beetstra T C 10:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waded through the websites mentioned on maritimequest.com, none of them comes over a count of 11 on en.wiki (apart from the Bismarck one). I noticed there is some one protest on 87.60.236.175’s talk page in considering these links spammy though. Thanks for taking this up. --Van helsing 10:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still cleaning the additions of the last IP, after that I will be better able to see whether there are more accounts. Regarding the remark on User talk:87.60.236.175#Moral support, the site itself appears not to be spam, but it is the way it is added to the wikipedia ([[WP:WPSPAM: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed"). Adding links only is not improving the wikipedia, if the link needs to be mentioned on the page, it can also be mentioned on the talkpage. See also WP:WPSPAM#How not to be a spammer. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Van helsing 10:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. I think where these links go to a photo-gallery which constitutes an otherwise unique online resource they do indeed add to Wikipedia. Where they go to an index page, or a class information page, I don't think they do. However, deleting them indiscriminately is making hundreds of our warship pages less informative. Plase stop it! The Land 11:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If this page is about spam to WikiProjects, it might also have been worth asking the people who work on these articles at WP:MILHIST whether they think the external links are useful. It might have been a good idea to do it before going on a deletion spree, not after, but I have asked for such a discussion here. The Land 11:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These links were spammed to the wikipedia (wikipedia definition - WP:SPAM). It would be the wrong way around to leave them there and discuss individually if they should be removed. All the guidelines and policies suggest to first discuss, and then add the link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The normal principle is to discuss before making radical changes, like deleting 500-odd external links, regardless of whether they should be there in the first place or not... The Land 11:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think that uploading the images would make the article even more informative. It even gives a possibility to discuss certain aspects on the images. I don't believe that external links make an article more informative. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The images may not have an appropriate copyright status to be uploaded here. The Land 11:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so WP:COPYRIGHT may also be of interest here. We may also not be able to link to the image galleries then, because we might be linking to a site that in itself is already violating copyright status. We may have to look into that as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with The Land. While the method of adding links might have triggered alarm bells in anti-spam patrols, the links I've seen go directly to relevant pages with photographs of the vessels in question. The MaritimeQuest site invites contributions of photos, but that doesn't mean that the the contributor would necessarily want to make that contribution GPL - licensing images to WP means they end up getting copied all over the internet and a quick scan shows that many of them seem to have been added as part of a family history quest. The ability to see photographs of the ships is very valuable - embedded image makes the article look pretty but let's remember that we are building an encyclopaedia for researchers to use, and whether they get to the image via a link or embedded in the article makes little difference. The correct place for determination of the relevance or otherwise of these links is the WP:MILHIST, and a consensus should have been agreed there before there was wholesale amendments to articles in its scope. I've noted that other MILHIST editors have reverted some of the link removals so it looks like the consensus is likely to be against removal Viv Hamilton 14:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting links to the very valuable maritimequest.com site. You are debasing our encyclopedia. Lou Sander 14:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a WP:SHIPS member I'd like to agree with the above editors and ask you to quit removing links to a valuable resource. "They were added in a spammy way!" is not an adequate justification; what's relevant is if the links improve the encyclopedia. TomTheHand 15:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link provides valuable extra information, there is no obvious intent to extract money from people who follow the maritimequest link. Please stop deleting these links and restore those which have been removed. Martin Cordon 15:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Observations and suggestions from a WPSPAM regular and nautical history buff:
  1. MaritimeQuest is a useful site. It's one I would have linked to for some maritime articles I've worked on had I known of it. There's a shortage of photos on the Internet for most ships. Not every ship has been in the news widely like HMCS Chicoutimi and it's hard to find photos of older ships such as HMS Rorqual.
  2. The site-owner's link additions definitely violate WP:COI and WP:SPAM.
  3. maritimequest.com appears to be more a labour of love than a money-making scheme for Mr. Pocock, notwithstanding the site's tiny store.
  4. I see Mr. Pocock is still adding these links today[13]. That's unhelpful and he may have to be briefly blocked if he persists; hopefully he'll engage here instead.
  5. Removal of links the owner added is entirely appropriate and Van helsing, Beetstra and others are just doing their job. Like Viv Hamilton, Lou Sander, and The Land, they are valued, long-time contributors.
  6. MILHIST does not own these links. WPSPAM doesn't exclusively own this issue either now that we've gotten pushback from non-COI editors.
  7. However ... given concerns of MILHIST editors, I suggest suspending the removal immediately until we reach consensus here. In effect, these other editors are ratifying some of Pocock's additions.
  8. I believe our mission at WPSPAM is to uphold the encyclopedia's integrity vis-å-vis spam campaigns while minimizing disruption and aggravation for regular long-time, good faith editors such as Viv Hamilton, Lou Sander, and The Land.
  9. As for copyright issues, a photo can be released to Pocock's site for that site's use and still not be released to Wikipedia's and its very, very broad GFDL license. So Pocock's site is not necessarily a copyright violator.
  10. As a general rule, we want to minimize external links where not absolutely necessary; see the phenomenon described at WP:SPAMHOLE -- it's very real and we see it all the time. I suggest not linking to sites like maritimequest.com for ships (such as HMS Ark Royal) where there are lots of pictures in the public domain that can be added to Commons
  11. Possible ways to move forward consistent with Wikipedia guidelines and policies:
    1. Remove each link Pocock added (leaving any links added by others)
    2. At the same time, post a brief neutral, note on each article talk page as this is done, explaining the removal and welcoming others without a COI to add the link back
    3. Post a neutral notice at WT:MILHIST as to what's going on
    4. Non-COI editors should feel free to add links back.
    5. We all try to do this without getting "pointy" about how we do it.
What do others think about ways to move forward?
--A. B. (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds quite sensible to me. Though I would prefer, given the large number of useful links, that the deletion were done on a case-by-case basis rather than the restoration. The links I would like to see retained are the ones where the link is to images which are not currently on Wikipedia and where there is a shortage of images both here and elsewhere on the internet. That represents the vast bulk of the pre-World War II warship articles. The Land 17:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestions A.B., and apologies to the guys of WP:MILHIST for not taking this up with them as well, that would have been the courteous thing to do. --Van helsing 17:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed one of these links on Kiev class aircraft carrier without realizing this conversation was going on. The Land, this isn't a pre-WWII ship and there appear to be some public domain images for it, but if you think this is a link that should stay please let me know and I'll happily revert my edit. I think A.B.'s suggestion is reasonable. The Land's approach would also work if editors who can make the determination are prepared to review all the links soonish. I would also suggest a note on the talk page letting editors know that the link was reviewed by a non-COI editor. -- SiobhanHansa 17:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Michael Pocock's response to our invitation to engage in this discussion. Any suggestions? --A. B. (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have just responded on Pocock's talk page. The Land 17:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying. --A. B. (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's come back again - seems like he'll give up adding his links, though he's miffed about it. The Land 18:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does not seem to me to be a reasonable solution at all. We should not remove each link that Pocock added. We should only delete links which do not enhance the articles on which they are posted. TomTheHand 18:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well how do we go about working through the list with some consensus? --A. B. (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To facilitate reviewing this, I created a subpage listing articles Michael Pocock edited: User:A. B./Sandbox15. See what you think. --A. B. (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just come here through noticing several of the articles on my watchlist have been affected by this. I add my voice to those editors above who have urged a stop to the removal of these links. All the links I have examined have been to very relevant galleries of pictures of the ships concerned, and there is no obvious attempt to use the link for commercial gain. If I read the comments above correctly, it appears that there is no objection to the links provided that the link is not coded by Mr Pocock. This strikes me as a particularly egregious waste of the time of all concerned, and a classic opportunity to invoke WP:IAR. I am reinstating the links in all the articles which appear on my watchlist. -- Arwel (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, like Arwel, have had my watchlist with WP:SPAM links. I do think that they are a valuable resource and that they should be kept. They are not spam, they are a link to a specific page with photos of a specific ship that are very hard to find. I will be following Arwel in reverting the deletions in my watchlist. I think having to avoid the COI seems to be a laborious waste of time. Woodym555 20:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Michael Pocock MaritimeQuest.com owner, First please excuse my lack of response on this page as I was unaware of it but, now that I have found it I will give my response. I see there is a very lively debate pro and con for leaving the links added by myself. I would state first that I have used wikipedia for years and found it most helpful in many respects but I have not until today involved myself in the politics of the site.

The links I have added were added to enhance wikipedia for the user but, of course this promotes my site, I can't see any way around that unless I close my site and just edit wikipedia. I have always found the links to other sites useful because they don't always come up on a search and I know there is one place to go to find them, wikipedia.

I have added links ONLY to the individual page for each vessel listed and yes, have added links to a friends site bismarck-class.dk. He did not know how to add them himself. To remove any links to his site would be a travesty as it is a site built by someone who HAS BEEN TO THE WRECK OF THE BISMARCK itself. I think that is useful don't you?

The links to my site as I have said, and has been pointed out by others, link directly to that vessel. I have worked very hard to collect the best photos of these ships and I believe this has value for the users of wikipedia. I have received many notes from people who found their ship on my site and have credited this from the wikipedia link (such as "I found your site through wikipedia etc.). While this can be seen as promotion of my site they KNOW how they found it.

It has been pointed out that many vessels are not featured as famous and therefore it is difficult to find photos or info on them. They are not glamorous so nobody cares much. There are many not even on wikipedia but if someone can find another site they can and do ask for help, which I always provide. I have made it a point to answer EVERY email no matter how silly and have done so for many people who just can't fine the info any other way and many of them have come through wikipedia I am sure.

I must say before today I have never received a complaint, or at least I have never noticed the note at the top of my screen saying "new message" so I was really unaware of all this going on behind the scene. I had not even read the spam notice before so I can somewhat understand the concern. However wholesale deletion of these links seems to harm the wikipedia pages as it intentionally hides information from users, I would think you would want more links to quality sites not fewer.

I will now address the copyright issue. Many of the photos (especially USN ships) are public domain and therefore can be used by anyone. Since I started the site I have had to remove only 1 picture due to copyright problems and I was offered one to replace it which had a copyright and a watermark on it which I declined. I also receive dozens of photos from contributors from around the world for which they hold the copyright. So to date there has been no copyright problem. Some of them true enough end up on other sites without my permission but, that is one of the hazards on posting them in the first place. I do request them removed from time to time and so far all but one has complied with my request.

I have not posted any of them to wikipedia but I have had requests from others to do so which I agreed to. However I know your primary design is to provide information not photos where is mine is both.

MaritimeQuest will go on and grow no matter your decision however I believe it is a good partnership. I have no adverts on my site, no pop up's, no BS at all. I do have a store but as one of you said it is very small. I am interested in making money because we all have to live but I have not put the time into development of the store because I find it dull. I work for a living my living is not my website, my site is my tribute to all those who sailed, served, built and died on these ships.

I will add no further links because it is a waste of my time to just have them deleted but I say again, it is a loss to wikipedia and it's users. History hidden is history forgotten. Regards, Michael Pocock (PS) Thanks to all who have been standing up for the links, I am very happy you find them of use.)

I have said early on "Although the site may be of good interest to the wikipedia, it should be used as a reference, not as an external link only; The way you are adding the link appears spammy, wikipedia is not a linkfarm". In this case, there were 4 accounts whose only contributions were to add the links. I have removed the links these 4 accounts (most by 2, 2 others did not add many links) have added (and I have not removed them if they were used as a reference), since our spam guideline says, even if the link may be useful, if you add massive amounts of links, all of them may be reverted. I could indeed have ignored all rules and let the links stay, but then, 450 of the links may have been OK, but who is to check which ones should be removed (I see this does not work either, I now see people revert without considering if a link is worthy). IMHO, these 4 accounts were spamming, and the additions by these 4 accounts should be cleaned, not only the ones that were added by Michael Pocock, after which uninvolved, established editors are off course free to re-add the link, if they think the link is of interest as an external link (of course obeying our policy what Wikipedia is not and our external links guideline. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it my understanding that you and you alone are the arbiter of what is useful to wikipedia? If so than have a crack at this. Youhave deleted a link added by me to the German Battleship Bismarck page. A link to www.bismarck-class.dk, a friends website. The reason you give is it is because I (Michael Pocock) posted it. You obviously did not bother to check the site to see if it was useful because if you had you would know the site was built by a guy that has been to the Bismarck. However, the K Bismarck site link is still there. The guy that runs this site is not reputible to say the least and has not been to the wreck so, which one is more valuable? You deleted it because I posted it and for no other reason. From reading the discussions most people agree ther MaritimeQuest links should remain as they are of value to that community yet you presist in wanting them removed along with other links I posted. Perhaps you should actually check the site (s) before you delete the link and not take some kind of vendetta against others because of me.

You should also note that I never posted a link above an exhisting link so mine would be first. If it was last than so be it, if people click on it fine, if they like my site then they will come back, if they don't they won't. Nobody was forcing them to click on the link. Furthermore, I think you will find my site has some of the best photos on the internet, especially of some vessels. I don't know why you don't think this is of any value. BTW the Russian carriers which seems to have sparked this whole problem. The photos are all public domain USDOD photos. Michael Pocock

No, I am not judging the usefulness of the link (I said that it may be useful, I have never said that the site was rubbish, useless, or whatever), I have judged the way these links were added. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's been established that these links were added in good faith and then removed in good faith.
I wonder if there's a way we can move past rancour and recriminations and move forward? --A. B. (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is all fine with me. I hope we can move on! --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, how would you have them posted?
Just stick them on the article talk page and let someone else add them (they probably will in your case). That's the preferred way of doing this. --A. B. (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That said, would I be correct in assuming that nobody is going to have any heartburn with it if I re-add a link to maritimequest on one of the pages I have been editing?CruiserBob 04:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, CruiserBob. All of the discussion here about maritimequest is about the appropriateness of maritimequest's owner, Michael Pocock, adding links to his own site, given his conflict of interest. Assuming you don't also have a personal stake in the maritimequest site, you can add these links as you see appropriate. --A. B. (talk) 04:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be more sensible to work directly with a wikiproject - WP:MILHIST or WP:SHIPS - rather than leaving notes on talk pages and waiting for someone to find them. You seem a bit mystified by the behind-the-scenes stuff here; I'd be happy to talk with you and try to help come up with a good way to handle this in the future. You can reach me via email by clicking this link: Special:Emailuser/Maralia. Maralia 01:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, having an excellent EL to add on a low traffic wiki article, but not being allowed to add it because of COI concerns, and having to wait till somebody replies to the talkpage, is going to be frustrating. Collaboration between the above projects and Mr. Pockock seems to me to be a good way to go further. --Van helsing 07:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would much, much rather Mr. Pocock add the links himself than post them on the talk page or just tell WP:SHIPS/WP:MILHIST that they're free to link to his site. He does a good job of it and spends a considerable amount of time; this effort improves articles and helps WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST. Beetstra, please leave him alone. The people who actually care about the articles that Mr. Pocock edits are very happy that he takes the time to help us improve them. I see no conflict of interest. Per WP:COI, COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, he stands in a conflict of interest. I think accusing Mr. Pocock of contributing just to promote himself is assuming bad faith, and accusing him of attempting to advance his outside interests at Wikipedia's expense is absurd. TomTheHand 14:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about this for a moment, but I want to respond to these remarks. TomTheHand, I am just afraid that with that remark you are opening a huge spamhole. In allowing accounts to massively add links because they are deemed OK, and perform only such edits, there is no way other accounts can't do that as well. If next libraries and musea follow and do the same, then the only thing we can say is 'well, we allow Michael Pocock to do it, so please go forward', and then people who have pictures on facebook ... and there is no reason to let all these articles to become a linkfarm. I have removed the links these 4 single purpose accounts have added with that in mind. I believe that we should never allow that. I hope that people will give this a second thought as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "slippery slope" at work here. I feel the criteria for whether or not a link should be present on an article is whether the link improves the article, and it is irrelevant who adds them. If an organization begins adding links to articles which do not improve them, have no doubt that I'll be on your side in removing the links. I've cleaned up linkspam many times myself, and I came down on the side of link removal for the issue of Hullnumber.com. When you noticed these links to his external site, you should have tried to determine if the links were (per WP:EL) "meritable, accessible and appropriate," and if you were unsure, you should have discussed the merit of the links with WikiProjects which are interested in the topics, rather than removed the links simply because of who added them. TomTheHand 17:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Michael Pocock may well have been acting in a self-interested manner, but in this particular case I think the conflict of interest was limited. I don't think every link he added was within the boundaries of WP:EL but the bulk were, and the remainder (photo galleries where there are readily-available free photos, description pages which duplicate information from authoritative print sources) did not overstep it much - which is why I was surprised to see a mass removal! There are some instances where very usually an external link is appropriate (look at the Star Wars or Star Trek articles, almost all of which link to the wikis dedicated those respective universes) and this is one of them. And, of course, we don't work by precedent here, so this discussion isn't setting one. The Land 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think all (or at least 99%) of the MaritimeQuest.com links have been restored now. --A. B. (talk) 08:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.bobandpennylord.com

bobandpennylord.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

Reformed spammers

See WP:ANI#SPAM Account. MER-C 08:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

babycenter.com

in particular: http://www.babycenter.com/comments/baby/postpartumbeauty/2432 on Stretch marks and now on Pregnancy.

babycenter.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

I haven't reported this here before because I viewed it as a content dispute (and it probably still is, although the IP refuses to discuss the issue and just keeps re-adding the link.) The link is a support forum which doesn't meet WP:EL, the site itself is a portal of sorts on issues relating to pregnancy, childbirth & parenthood. Based on Alexa.com, it would appear the site is somehow related to Johnson & Johnson - possibly a corporate sponsor. It has a fairly high Alexa ranking, appears in Google directory's list of top sites on the subject and the IPs appear to belong to private ISPs - so I'm guessing it isn't COI spam.

There has been a slow revert war going on since December on Stretch marks, which led to the page being semi-protected this morning, then this afternoon - one of the IPs added the same link to Pregnancy. I'm not sure there is much we can do, I'm just recording this here for posterity. --Versageek 20:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seemed like a pretty straightforward case to me, but another user has gone to bat for the sites inclusion; see discussion here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, I see the user uses a <span class="plainlinks"> in his remark to remove the 'external link' sign from the external links. In any way, were these links added to the wikipedia in a 'spammy' way, or in good faith by many different editors? If they give extra information, their inclusion may be OK. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit troubling also "Why Wikipedia doesn't want you to know about this site" posted on the root domain linking to his → www.fireworksland.com/html/wikipedia.html.
Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Wikipedia...off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. see also WP:NPA#Off-wiki_personal_attacks. We need no longer believe that these individuals on-wiki actions in adding these sites was in good faith--Hu12 23:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The (local) spam blacklist beckons... MER-C 10:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I removed the remaining links to the aforementioned site. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its now localy blacklisted.--Hu12 05:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm somewhat disappointed that the Wikipedia community has decided against the inclusion of these links and even went as far as blacklisting one of them, I don't think I should get any further involved in this debate, as it's obviously a conflict of interest for me.

However, whether or not I'm affiliated with these sites, I do feel that they contain much more information than what our articles (firework, fireworks, and consumer fireworks) currently have.

Other editions of Wikipedia may have different policies on external links, but I won't pursue that avenue since that will only make me look like a spammer. I'll let other users decide whether these links should be added to other Wikipedias.

One thing I could do is to ask the webmasters to release some of their sites' content under the GFDL, or better yet, public domain. Even then, much of the content (such as product reviews and forum posts) would be unencyclopedic and thus inappropriate for Wikipedia. --Ixfd64 22:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bellazon.org spam on Wikipedia

Partial list of cross-wiki spam accounts:

  • Cross-wiki edits: 172.173.217.219
    • ar, cs, da, fa, he, id, ja, nl, no, pl, ro, ru, sk, sl, sr, sv, th, tr, yi, zh

Spammed domains:

Related sites:

Google Adsense #: 3888230977488499

Reference:

--A. B. (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More IP accounts (some were used on en.wikipedia, some only on other wikipedias):
--A. B. (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted spamming (2)

Sites spammed

http://spam.knuru.com

knuru.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

http://spam.businesssrilanka.com

businesssrilanka.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

http://spam.weeenetwork.com

weeenetwork.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

http://spam.midnimo.com

midnimo.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
Spammers

See WP:ANI#Spammer. MER-C 02:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/history/publications

Another librarian. See here for previous library/archive discussions (nothing has been resolved as of yet regarding this type of thing).

Katr67 20:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets monitor. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broader implications of librarians' linking campaigns

I suggest taking this whole topic to a broader audience such as the administrators' noticeboard and/or the village pump and/or the discussion pages for one of the relevant guidelines (WP:COI, WP:EL, WP:SPAM). From looking at the prior discussion (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jul#Library links discussions) it looks like this is an issue that will only grow and fester until the broader community reaches some consensus. I'm biased towards being fairly receptive to these links submitted from librarians, but I see several problems from prior link cleanup:

  1. If every librarian gets in on the act, they will create spam holes that attract real spam. The spam hole phenomenon is very real and we see it every day. Our Great Depression article just can't sustain links to the Depression-era collections of every university, museum and historical society in the English-speaking world.
  2. Frequently these links refer to the existence of some document while not providing much actual content -- just a sort of indexing page. I saw that with many of the links cleaned out of the Appalachia article earlier this year.
  3. Sometimes, librarians link to a nice university page that goes into way too much detail; one (fictitious) example would be a page about "Hybrid crabapple trees in Tasmania" linked from the main Tasmania article.
  4. Alternately, they may link to something too shallow; for example, a page about "World War II in the Pacific" linked from our Battle of Midway article.

I noted some of the librarians that posted in the previous discussion were dismissive towards regular Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia can really use the expertise of good professional librarians helping here, but from the sorts of thing I've seen, there remains confusion about what we do and how we do it. Some librarians may be confusing us with DMOZ, WikiSource or Commons.

Librarians, as well, really are people, too, and they can get just as excited and enthusiastic about what they've got as anyone else. Promoting their collections may interfere with our goals even if when not motivated by greed.

Perhaps a working group of librarians and editors could start by putting together an essay on the topic.--A. B. (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some other editor communities that may have some insights:
These projects don't exactly deal with the issue we're discussing, but they likely draw some editors that are librarians or otherwise have some insights on this issue. --A. B. (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to point out that, in my opinion, it's not necessarily the links themselves that are a problem, but the way they are being added to articles as a sort of "campaign" as A.B. calls it. In the above case, I especially object to the phrase "Available online through the Washington State Library's Classics in Washington History collection", which seems unnecessarily like an ad for that library's services. I actually used one of the previously discussed links as a citation recently, however. I do think people mean well, but we need to reach consensus on this matter. Katr67 22:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These discussions (as many discussions here) often become heated, with arguments like 'but we have information that wikipedia does not have', and 'we link to reliable, on topic, information'. So I just want to say here: we do want the links. Really! But we are more interested in the information that can be provided. And what we want even more, is the information, with the link as a reference. Because a link without the information is just a tunnel away from this encyclopedia, which does not necessarily improve the article where the link is on. As said, it tunnels to the site, people do not stay on the Wikipedia article, and may not return unless they use the back-button. IMHO, the wikipedia article should be totally stand-alone, containing all the information that one could possibly want (or on more wikipedia articles linked together) with references to reliable sources (as many libraries and other archives are!) which back up that information. And I do understand, there are some things that simply can not be incorporated, but that is not very often the case! And I also do understand that people do not always have time to edit articles, but if one has time to add 10 external links to 10 articles, one also has time to add 2 sentences of information and 1 reference to one article, both should take about 5 minutes.

In that process of adding links, it is best not to set of our spam radar, or our conflict of interest radar. Concerning these 'spam' or 'conflicts of interest', indeed, many of these organisations are not commercial, they do not actively sell something. Still (and I know that what I suggest here is in violation of 'assume good faith'), the efficiency of the organisation is often measured by the number of visitors (which may for higher organisations be a measure for the influx of money to the library/archive; such organisations still do need the money to pay their employees, the building and the heating). Though the linkadditions are meant to improve the Wikipedia, in that process people are invited to visit the linked site, and I think it is in both our interest to try and avoid such implications (even if they are totally untrue and not meant that way). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points have been raised and I've been thinking about the issues and discussing it with other librarians. I'd be glad to participate in any working group that might be formed. Let me ask your opinion about some potential options:

As one example, my original citation was:

  • Mitchell, Samuel Augustus (1846). Accompaniment to Mitchell's New map of Texas, Oregon, and California, with the regions adjoining. S. Augustus Mitchell.Available online through the Washington State Library's Classics in Washington History collection

I wanted to use a template to try and abide by Wikipedia's standards. I used the fields in the {cite book} template that seemed most appropriate to share information researchers need to make informed decisions about the value of the resource, including author, title, publisher and date. And of course a link to the actual digital edition (not to the library home page, but the actual document being cited). In adding that link, it made sense to me at the time to add our library name and collection as the source of that digital edition.

The changes made to remove the "spam" from the Oregon article resulted in this citation:

As a librarian and educator, I think it's important to include further citation information, both so that the work can be correctly attributed and so that a researcher looking at the entry can decide whether the link is worth pursuing. The date can imply primary or secondary sources, and even the publisher information can show a point of view (our example book is self-published, for example).

Adding an entry for the library is a way of showing the authenticity and value of the selected source as the publisher of the digital version. If the Washington State Library includes a title in its Classics in Washington History Collection, then a researcher might assume that the work is indeed recognized as important and respected material on topics related to the Pacific Northwest.

The use of the Library name also appear in OCLC cataloging records which are created according to professional library standards. The catalog entry for our digitial version of this book includes a MARC 710 field (Added Entry–Corporate Name) due to the Washington State Library's creation and publication of this digitized edition.

If you search OCLC's Worldcat you will see the Library mentioned in several Notes, and "Washington State Library. Classics in Washington History" appears at the top next to the author as a link. Clicking on that link brings up the entire list of books digitized by our library for that collection.

The Library's name is not just "advertising" but rather is part of the information about this particular edition. That's why it's been included in the catalog record and why I think it should be included in the citation in Wikipedia.

I think it's also important to use a citation template to try and standardize the information and formatting used for Wikipedia entries. So I've taken a deeper look at the cite book template and how the fields from the MARC records might best be matched.

So how about this option where the library, as creator and publisher of the digital version, is listed in the template's OTHERS field:

Does this format make sense? Other suggestions? Richardaedwards 16:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


bestofjdm.com

Pulled from the archive:

Commercial site, selling engines for cars. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still spamming.[14][15][16][17]
--A. B. (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blacklisting requested:
--A. B. (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need more Meta admins

Some pending requests at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist are up to 10 days old.

Can I interest any admins here into standing for admin at meta?
--A. B. (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing, my WMF admin bit is on en.Wiktionary - but it still counts :) .. and I have the anti-spam & regex experience for the job. --Versageek 01:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter spam

I just cleaned up 17 high-traffic Harry Potter articles. All had referral links to an Amazon store, disguised as the official Amazon Harry Potter Store. Example diff: [18]

Please keep an eye on Harry Potter articles for affiliate spam, and please be careful of all Amazon links. Rhobite 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please linksearch for astore.amazon.com regularly, as nearly all of these links are spam except for the one from AStore (which needs cleanup). Rhobite 23:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets make COIBot do his job from now on, as most, if not all, should be monitored:
--Dirk Beetstra T C 23:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More spammers

MER-C 12:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive of spammed sites?

Is there any place which keeps a record of sites which have been spammed in the past? So we can check if they need to be blacklisted if they do it again? Kappa 04:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think most busted previous spamming campaigns are contained in the archives of this page. So, if a linksearch shows links to archives of this page and/or it finds URLs like http://spam.example.com it's been spammed before. MER-C 09:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK well should I use it like that? If I revert a bunch of spam xlinks I come here and mention it? Kappa 12:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. MER-C 02:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian spam

Sites spammed
Spammers

See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/59.144.165.88. MER-C 11:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is huge. Can I have some help, please? MER-C 12:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-

Looks like this is almost wrapped up. The first two, mapsofworld.com and mapsofindia.com, are taking some time because they are often used as inline cited references, occasionally in Featured Articles. Thus, I am trying to carefully evaluate each one on a case by case basis; a second opinion on the remaining links would still be appreciated. Thanks to MER-C and others for tackling most of this. -- Satori Son 18:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish city spam

Sites spammed
Spammers
See also x-wiki.
See also x-wiki.
See also x-wiki.

There's interwiki spam too with 13 + 12 + 13 + 32 + 9 + 10 + 2 + 0 + 12 + 0 + 3 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 106 spam links on other projects respectively, which hasn't been dealt with yet. Recommended urgent blacklisting of the lot. MER-C 14:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still spamming. Hurry up and blacklist. MER-C 13:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.godaddy.co.in http://spam.ezodiac.info

godaddy.co.in: 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
ezodiac.info: 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

Spammers

MER-C 14:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

122.164.132.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --Hu12 (talk) 14:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


http://spam.greatmanagement.org http://spam.andrewrondeau.co.uk http://spam.acceleratedmanagementsystem.co.uk

Spam sock accounts

Greatmanagement (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 17:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Need assistance with Inter-Asterisk eXchange‎ and YATE spammer

A new user is persistent in spamming her software project YATE on WP. (The YATE article has been removed multiple times and is now under a DRV). User has been warned and links removed from many articles under an IP user id 83.166.206.79. She now has created a user id User:Diana cionoiu. She has openly acknowledged that her job is to promote YATE and she has requested help on the YATE project talk page for others to assist her in promoting YATE on WP. Most of the EL's she's added have already been removed but on Inter-Asterisk eXchange‎, she has solicited another WP user User:Apankrat to assist her and we are currently at the 3RR level. The article lists groups and organizations that are related to the topic, none of which have ELs. These two insist upon listing YATE with an EL. This lady is persistent and now has requested this WP user to add links to her project on other articles as well User talk:Apankrat. Any assistance here would be appreciated. Calltech 03:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - user Diana solicited help on my Talk page AFTER I linked Yate from IAX page. She did NOT solicit initial edit. It was my own decision based on notability and relevance of the link to the content of IAX page. Whoever is reviewing this case, please keep in mind that Calltech and Diana users were engaged in what appears to be a minor war editing and they are both naturally biased on the subject. I posted detailed rationale for my edits on Talk:Inter-Asterisk_eXchange, please consider reviewing them as well. Alex Pankratov 05:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Diana cionoiu openly solicited links on Talk:Inter-Asterisk eXchange‎ to her project's webpage and Alex Pankratov responded (inline comments on article talk page). His edits did not happen independent of Diana's action or request. She then proceeded to specifically solicit Alex Pankratov to add additional links on his talk page.
You were the one who suggested Diana to "add a comment on the article's discussion page and request another neutral editor add the information if they agree", which effectively amounts to endorsing the solicitation. I was following your advice, not hers.
I said information, not link. Perhaps I should have been more expicit. Adding information consistent with the other organizations would have been even a better explanation. Calltech 16:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YATE is NOT notable by WP definition Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YATE, (which Alex Pankratov is aware) - the YATE article has been deleted 3 times!.
The article IAX has a history of collecting ELs and has been cleaned up since April 2007 by myself and other editors, long before these "edit wars" as described by Alex Pankratov occured. Alex Pankratov now appears to advocate the restoration of all of these external links Talk:Inter-Asterisk_eXchange.
I provided an extended rationale for this, which you appear to be persistently ignoring.
However, he made no comment when the article was cleaned up months ago, even though he has made edits since the cleanup. (See edit history).
I was not aware of the article "months ago".
Now he is now selectively adding an EL to a specific website, claiming WP guidelines are secondary to the perceived special value that the YATE link offers, without offering any basis for this decision.
I have never said that. Please do not twist my words. I said that WP EL policy is secondary to any changes that remove valuable relevant content from the article. My comment was NOT Yate specific.
My "bias" is against users who insist upon promoting their projects using WP. Calltech 12:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per this edit you don't seem to have a problem with referencing Yate in the article. So I am not sure why exactly you decided to initiate this complaint to begin with. The core of the matter that led to 3RR was a presence of EL in the reference. I have justified my edit, and you produced an superficial argument of "not a collection of links" that is completely irrelevant in the context. Alex Pankratov 15:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read Talk:Inter-Asterisk eXchange on the subject of YATE, to learn about the issue. Then I turned to the article itself to see if it mentioned YATE in its text. It did not do so. It doesn't say that you could use YATE as a server, or say why you would want to. I'd expect to see at least one report by an actual third party that had used YATE as an IAX server, in other words, a source proving the significance of YATE that could be included as a reference in the IAX article. The YATE site says little about IAX; IAX is just one of the protocols that YATE claims to support. The site also has some cookbook instructions for how to set it up as an IAX server. If you want to learn anything at all about IAX from that site, you'd be disappointed. The connection, and the relevance, seems very thin. If reliable material were added to the article text, it could make a difference. As of now I don't see the link to be justified. EdJohnston 15:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please elaborate why the reference itself is justified, but the link is not ? If Yate is not notable (though from a casual glance it appears to be), it should be removed altogether. Thanks. Alex Pankratov 16:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a computer magazine had written about an actual person or company using YATE as an IAX server, that article would be referenceable. Existence of such a third-party reference could make YATE significant enough to justify an external link to their website. Once it is found that the IAX article needs to have a section discussing various providers of server software. EdJohnston 16:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, this does not answer my question actually. Magazine article would establish notability, wouldn't it ? So I follow your logic, it's OK to have a reference to a non-notable subject, but it just won't get a link. This is not how Notability policy works in WP. Alex Pankratov 16:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IF the product is notable in this context, it might be worth providing a link to the YATE site for the convenience of our readers. If it's not notable, it doesn't deserve a link. What is mysterious about that? EdJohnston 16:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if it's not notable, it doesn't deserve a link, but still deserves an entry ? Alex Pankratov 17:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I see the article and the section "Products Using IAX", I would suggest to remove that section altogether, or a total rewrite of that section. The article should tell what IAX is, how it works, why it is useful, etc. There is no need for a list of products using IAX (such lists quickly appear spammy), except if it is a notable use (but then it needs a rewrite, the section should then tell why it is notable that this product uses IAX). --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a great advice. However having thought about it a bit, I can see one problem with it. If I am browsing IAX article, it is only natural for me to wonder what software supports it. Unlike more common protocols (like, say, TCP or FTP), IAX is more exotic, so the software list is not voluminous and it is practical to have. Though I am not sure how that would go with "not a directory" policy. Alex Pankratov 16:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that this is great advice. Lists such as these tend to attract spam as you stated, especially when users see a competitor listed and naturally feel their website, article or project should also. I would support this 100%. Calltech 16:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why i've added Yate there was because the article himself seems to be more or less advertising for Asterisk. Since like Alex Pankratov said IAX is a exotic protocol, and there are only 2 server implementation for it (one from Asterisk and one from Yate), i was considered that as a relevant information. Diana cionoiu 15:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if that is the function of the wikipedia, 'providing lists of software that support a certain protocol', but a rewrite where notable cases of support of that protocol does, to a certain extend, satisfy that need (e.g. the first case of support, or a support which makes the space shuttle land safely ..(as you may see, I am not really familiar with the protocol)). If the support is trivial, it is not needed to be named, if it is not trivial, it can be explained why it is not trivial, and be independently referenced. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:Ronz has removed the lists from the article which I believe is to our mutual satisfaction. Thanks all for your contributions and comments. Calltech 17:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ack ack. Thanks, everyone. Alex Pankratov 17:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.opticien-lentilles.com

I thought this was resolved, but the link just showed up again. I'm guessing this is the same person on a dynamic ip. I don't think any other action is necessary, though feel free to review & comment. --Ronz 02:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.drug3k.com

drug3k.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

Spammers

Several different IPs adding the same spam over 15 minutes or so. MER-C 11:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a variety of different continents, too, making proxitude a likely explanation. Listed at WP:OP. MER-C 09:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.jtchandler.com

Adsense pub-7318232893479089

Spam sock accounts

JT Chandler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
67.174.191.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 15:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adsense pub-9403840580672510 and pub-9947708440066083 The following URLs are related through registration details, blog oster IDs, google ad IDs and the WP accounts adding them as links:

Found users adding the links:

-- SiobhanHansa 15:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kellen Interactive was back

Kellen Interactive is a marketing company that represents a lot of trade groups. They Spammed a bunch of sites up through October 2006, but stopped after we stamped down. They appear to have come back in May this year. Another of my marks I haven't checked up on in a while. Guess I need to remember to stay on top.... previous accounts:

Accounts spamming in May:

Sites spammed in May:

See My report page for more details.

Please keep an eye out for similar sites on food related articles (there appear to be dozens). They tend to be fairly similar, generally fluffy and lacking any in depth or serious treatment (though they may make scientific claims), and often say "hosted by Kellen" or give a Kellen address for contacting on the website. They generally, though not always, use a .org top level domain. -- SiobhanHansa 22:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

http:// spam.self-publishing-guide.blogspot.com

Adsense pub-9359192521245996

Spam sock accounts

121.97.73.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
124.6.162.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
222.127.228.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
222.127.54.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 03:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts:

Also:


Deleted articles:


Domain:

Related domains:

Possibly related domain:

Reference:

Google AdSense IDs:

  • 2771851870241257
  • 7224921763188178
  • 7770913157352696
  • 7857615299922439
  • 7930229314295430

--A. B. (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.explorepda.com

Spam sock accounts

59.92.87.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.92.37.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.92.35.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.92.36.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.92.47.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Explorepda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)<br--Hu12 07:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.e-articles.info

(pulled from archive)

Adsense pub-6385036138714482

Googleboy.live (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--Hu12 05:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I saw an edit to one of the articles that I am watching as it seems to be a spam magnet. I checked the external links and saw three articles on the site e-articles.info. Some digging gives a handful of single-purpose accounts:
Some of the links seem good as a reference, but are 'spammed' to external links sections. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
89.137.176.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --Hu12 (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.medicineonline.com http://spam.1artclub.com

medicineonline.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
1artclub.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

Spammers

MER-C 12:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.baor-locations.com

baor-locations.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

Spammers

MER-C 13:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.hatingautism.blogspot.com

hatingautism.blogspot.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

Spammers

MER-C 13:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.toazted.com http://spam.toazted.nl

toazted.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
toazted.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

Spammers

MER-C 13:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.pinkraygun.com

Adsense pub-7273096578538676

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk 18:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done user has been blocked for spamming after final warning--Hu12 18:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Registered to Norquay in Sydney, Australia. Only warned once before.

Accounts:

Domains linked:

Related domains:

Google Adsense ID: 3842312124091890
--A. B. (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

X-wiki:
--A. B. (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.nccn.org

Article National Comprehensive Cancer Network
→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/National_Comprehensive_Cancer_Network
 → See also: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_15#National_Comprehensive_Cancer_Network

Spam sock accounts

B1402cp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tvawter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Template:User-multi
safesubst:#invoke:UserLinks
--Hu12 21:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Template:Anchor[reply]

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/history/publications

Another librarian. See here for previous library/archive discussions (nothing has been resolved as of yet regarding this type of thing).

Katr67 20:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets monitor. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broader implications of librarians' linking campaigns

I suggest taking this whole topic to a broader audience such as the administrators' noticeboard and/or the village pump and/or the discussion pages for one of the relevant guidelines (WP:COI, WP:EL, WP:SPAM). From looking at the prior discussion (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jul#Library links discussions) it looks like this is an issue that will only grow and fester until the broader community reaches some consensus. I'm biased towards being fairly receptive to these links submitted from librarians, but I see several problems from prior link cleanup:

  1. If every librarian gets in on the act, they will create spam holes that attract real spam. The spam hole phenomenon is very real and we see it every day. Our Great Depression article just can't sustain links to the Depression-era collections of every university, museum and historical society in the English-speaking world.
  2. Frequently these links refer to the existence of some document while not providing much actual content -- just a sort of indexing page. I saw that with many of the links cleaned out of the Appalachia article earlier this year.
  3. Sometimes, librarians link to a nice university page that goes into way too much detail; one (fictitious) example would be a page about "Hybrid crabapple trees in Tasmania" linked from the main Tasmania article.
  4. Alternately, they may link to something too shallow; for example, a page about "World War II in the Pacific" linked from our Battle of Midway article.

I noted some of the librarians that posted in the previous discussion were dismissive towards regular Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia can really use the expertise of good professional librarians helping here, but from the sorts of thing I've seen, there remains confusion about what we do and how we do it. Some librarians may be confusing us with DMOZ, WikiSource or Commons.

Librarians, as well, really are people, too, and they can get just as excited and enthusiastic about what they've got as anyone else. Promoting their collections may interfere with our goals even if when not motivated by greed.

Perhaps a working group of librarians and editors could start by putting together an essay on the topic.--A. B. (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some other editor communities that may have some insights:
These projects don't exactly deal with the issue we're discussing, but they likely draw some editors that are librarians or otherwise have some insights on this issue. --A. B. (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to point out that, in my opinion, it's not necessarily the links themselves that are a problem, but the way they are being added to articles as a sort of "campaign" as A.B. calls it. In the above case, I especially object to the phrase "Available online through the Washington State Library's Classics in Washington History collection", which seems unnecessarily like an ad for that library's services. I actually used one of the previously discussed links as a citation recently, however. I do think people mean well, but we need to reach consensus on this matter. Katr67 22:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These discussions (as many discussions here) often become heated, with arguments like 'but we have information that wikipedia does not have', and 'we link to reliable, on topic, information'. So I just want to say here: we do want the links. Really! But we are more interested in the information that can be provided. And what we want even more, is the information, with the link as a reference. Because a link without the information is just a tunnel away from this encyclopedia, which does not necessarily improve the article where the link is on. As said, it tunnels to the site, people do not stay on the Wikipedia article, and may not return unless they use the back-button. IMHO, the wikipedia article should be totally stand-alone, containing all the information that one could possibly want (or on more wikipedia articles linked together) with references to reliable sources (as many libraries and other archives are!) which back up that information. And I do understand, there are some things that simply can not be incorporated, but that is not very often the case! And I also do understand that people do not always have time to edit articles, but if one has time to add 10 external links to 10 articles, one also has time to add 2 sentences of information and 1 reference to one article, both should take about 5 minutes.

In that process of adding links, it is best not to set of our spam radar, or our conflict of interest radar. Concerning these 'spam' or 'conflicts of interest', indeed, many of these organisations are not commercial, they do not actively sell something. Still (and I know that what I suggest here is in violation of 'assume good faith'), the efficiency of the organisation is often measured by the number of visitors (which may for higher organisations be a measure for the influx of money to the library/archive; such organisations still do need the money to pay their employees, the building and the heating). Though the linkadditions are meant to improve the Wikipedia, in that process people are invited to visit the linked site, and I think it is in both our interest to try and avoid such implications (even if they are totally untrue and not meant that way). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points have been raised and I've been thinking about the issues and discussing it with other librarians. I'd be glad to participate in any working group that might be formed. Let me ask your opinion about some potential options:

As one example, my original citation was:

I wanted to use a template to try and abide by Wikipedia's standards. I used the fields in the {cite book} template that seemed most appropriate to share information researchers need to make informed decisions about the value of the resource, including author, title, publisher and date. And of course a link to the actual digital edition (not to the library home page, but the actual document being cited). In adding that link, it made sense to me at the time to add our library name and collection as the source of that digital edition.

The changes made to remove the "spam" from the Oregon article resulted in this citation:

As a librarian and educator, I think it's important to include further citation information, both so that the work can be correctly attributed and so that a researcher looking at the entry can decide whether the link is worth pursuing. The date can imply primary or secondary sources, and even the publisher information can show a point of view (our example book is self-published, for example).

Adding an entry for the library is a way of showing the authenticity and value of the selected source as the publisher of the digital version. If the Washington State Library includes a title in its Classics in Washington History Collection, then a researcher might assume that the work is indeed recognized as important and respected material on topics related to the Pacific Northwest.

The use of the Library name also appear in OCLC cataloging records which are created according to professional library standards. The catalog entry for our digitial version of this book includes a MARC 710 field (Added Entry–Corporate Name) due to the Washington State Library's creation and publication of this digitized edition.

If you search OCLC's Worldcat you will see the Library mentioned in several Notes, and "Washington State Library. Classics in Washington History" appears at the top next to the author as a link. Clicking on that link brings up the entire list of books digitized by our library for that collection.

The Library's name is not just "advertising" but rather is part of the information about this particular edition. That's why it's been included in the catalog record and why I think it should be included in the citation in Wikipedia.

I think it's also important to use a citation template to try and standardize the information and formatting used for Wikipedia entries. So I've taken a deeper look at the cite book template and how the fields from the MARC records might best be matched.

So how about this option where the library, as creator and publisher of the digital version, is listed in the template's OTHERS field:

Does this format make sense? Other suggestions? Richardaedwards 16:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think it is the way it is linked, or what is linked is a problem (except when libraries/archives/etc. are linking to non-unique resources of which they also hold a copy, which does seem unnecessary to me), but the way the links get added. The way our spam-radar here gets set of is when accounts perform link/reference-additions only. Librarians/archivers/etc-ers are welcome resources for information, not only for the links into their information services. When content gets added with references, which are 'occasional' to their own organisation (as in, not exclusively) no-one here will complain, even when the links are added to external links sections. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

User:498a

This is partially a cross posting from WP:COIN:
Template:Userlinks -
User 498a's name is a reference to India's anti-dowry law, section 498a. They are adding links (which break WP:EL because its a link to unverified research and//or a personal site) to an anti-Section 498a site to Bride burning (the subject of which is dowry killing).[20] It is possible that this user is the person behind that site since its name is "www.498a-misuse.sojos.net". The same links were added to Dowry law in India[21], Dowry[22], Human rights in India[23], Non-resident Indian and Person of Indian Origin[24] and Indian penal code[25]

I've already reverted the Bride burning spam--Cailil talk 18:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

adding linksearch--Hu12 23:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same stuff is being added by an IP 69.181.134.149[26]--Cailil talk 11:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

Affiliate spamming of http://spam.moneybookers.com

  • Affiliate ID 1188674
Spam sock accounts

Template:Vandal
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
de.Template:IP vandal light
de.Template:IP vandal lightde.
Template:Vandal
Template:IP vandal light de.
Template:IP vandal light de.

  • Affiliate ID 3872559
Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light de.
Template:IP summary fr.

  • Affiliate ID 3462058
Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light

  • Affiliate ID 1405659
Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light

  • Affiliate ID 3174545
Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light

  • Affiliate ID 321266
Spam sock accounts

Template:Vandal

  • Affiliate ID 2894426
Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light

  • Affiliate ID 815360
Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light

  • Affiliate ID 466479
Spam sock accounts

Template:Vandal

  • Affiliate ID 316906
Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light

added by

Template:Vandal
--Hu12 01:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Affiliate ID 4038970
Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light fr.

  • Affiliate ID 3963846
Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light

  • Affiliate ID 3224340
Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 (talk) 20:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Website has now Been Rebranded ;
de:Special:Contributions/Skrill "We are the operators of Skrill (Moneybookers) and would like to contribute to the data and facts in the record are currently using our online payment service."
"Skrill is the future of Moneybookers. A rebranding that extends and improves the Moneybookers global payment network even further. Clients will use Skrill however they need. To make payments, receive payments or transfer funds. " - corporate.skrill.com/
-Hu12 (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgestreet http://spam.hedgestreet.com

→ See also: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Hedgestreet
other article; Hedgelet → See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hedgelet

Spam sock accounts

Template:Vandal
Template:Vandal
Template:Vandal
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 05:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

http://spam.mastyspot.blogspot.com http://spam.invisionplus.net http://spam.mastyspot.co.nr

Spam pages
Sites spammed
Spammers

Invisionplus.net should be fed to shadowbot as it is yet another create your own forum site. MER-C 13:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

http://spam.thevirtualsexreview.com

Template:Spamlink

Spammers

MER-C 13:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

http://spam. paullee.com

Template:Spamlink

Spammers

MER-C 13:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

http://spam.thecandypitch.com

Template:Spamlink

Spammers

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk 14:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two more spammers. MER-C 14:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

http://spam.justpressplay.net

Template:Spamlink

Spammer

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk 14:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

http://spam.sitespect.com

Accounts

Template:Vandal
Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 05:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Template:Anchor[reply]

myperpignan.com perpignanfr.com

Template:Spamlink
Template:Spamlink

Spammers

There are more, I think. Long term dynamic IP spamming. The local blacklist beckons. MER-C 13:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another spammer. MER-C 13:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Local Global blacklisting requested. MER-C 13:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was requested via WP:ANI and I have updated the local spam filter. Have no meta privs, sorry! - Alison ☺ 06:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Done User:Herbythyme has now updated the Meta blacklist so I've gone ahead and unprot'd the article and will remove them from local. Yayy!! - Alison ☺ 14:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

Regarding www.myperpignan.com and perpignanfr.com as soon as requested I stopped adding my site to the links page. A number of others had been doing the same. i am new at this and assumed it was OK. I even included my email address for you to contact me. There was no need to swear in your emails to me. It was not necessary. I am asking you in a more polite manner than you did to me to remove me from this list of banned sites. Thanking you kindly.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.94.53 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 25 September 2007

http:// spam.trackthatad.com squidoo spam in welcome messages

There's been a few accounts recently adding squidoo/trackthatad spam in welcome messages:

-- zzuuzz (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That warrents a black listing if you ask me... --T-rex 03:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some are blocked already, all the spam needs to be deleted.--Hu12 05:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the spam is now gone and the accounts blocked. I don't see any reason for trackthatad links on Wikipedia. Squidoo backlinks need constant checking. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to localy BL this, there is no instance when this link is appropriate on Wikipedia--Hu12 06:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

Nightly bot archiving broken

I left a message at User_talk:Shadowbot3 about a problem first noticed by User:Hu12, that this page is not being archived correctly. Has no effect on users of this page unless you are searching for an item archived since 13 August. Will keep you posted. EdJohnston 05:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This occurs when there is a blacklisted link in the archive. The bot can't add the archive or de-link the bad links, so the current months archive needs to be checked manualy sometimes. Its been corrected, there were three BL links, should archive succesfuly now.--Hu12 05:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

Can somone make sense of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.bleb.org

Seems like these are all on SPA's..or does this serve a function?--Hu12 06:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the legitimate uses for user accounts (this has been brought up during usurpation discussions) is to customise the layout for reading Wikipedia. The dates of creation of these monobooks are wide-ranging, which indicates it's not a campaign of any sort. I don't see there's anything wrong here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

http://spam.mbapakistan.com

Template:Spamlink

Spammers

MER-C 12:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

Photobucket question

I know I've run across administrators removing photobucket.com links, and I do know that LinkSearch keeps a record of them, but I've searched and searched for a specific policy regarding the use of them, and so far have come up empty. Could someone please let me know how to deal with editors that add links to photobucket images (aside from copyright issues, is there a policy with regards to linking to them)? I did check the external links policy, the copyright policy, the image policies, and could not find a specific note about the issue. Thanks in advance! Ariel♥Gold 12:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Template:Anchor[reply]

http://spam.sirensmag.com

Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 22:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Template:Anchor[reply]

http://spam.value-investing-center.com

Adsense pub-5663444745029481

Spam sock accounts

Template:Vandal
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 23:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Template:Anchor[reply]

Adsense pub-5908824067047283

Cross-wiki Spam accounts

http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96zel:Contributions/88.228.91.25
http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96zel:Contributions/88.244.232.32
http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96zel:Contributions/Hutame
http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96zel:Contributions/Jimraynor
http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96zel:Contributions/88.242.137.140

Spam sock accounts

Template:Vandal
--Hu12 09:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

Adsense Spamming

Adsense pub-7086695109148775

Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 09:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

http://spam. sustainlane.com

A green campaign, users linking all occurances of the word 'sustainlane' to the external site, as well as names of cities which are named on the site as being 'green' (see alse Green cities

Users:

--Dirk Beetstra T C 10:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Template:Anchor[reply]

SustainLane Government
Sustainlane
Template:Vandal
Template:Vandal
Template:Vandal
Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.earncash.co.in

Adsense pub-1525486784170633

Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 15:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Template:Anchor[reply]

Local Blacklisting?

Did this happen while I was off for a couple of months? It seems like most requests are still being made at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist. What's the difference between the two? I skimmed the archive but couldn't find a discussion about this. If I missed it, please just point me in the right direction). Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 13:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist affects en.wiki only, the one on meta affects everything with the spam blacklist extension. MER-C 14:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So we should g local unless there's crosswiki spam? -- SiobhanHansa 14:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider true spam (porn, viagra), even if it is not crosswiki yet, also for the meta blacklist. The less blatant ones either for the local blacklist (if it is rubbish), otherwise user:AntiSpamBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pushing blacklisting out to the individual projects highlights the fact that it's very hard to find out what other projects have been spammed. We have one fairly new tool at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~eagle/linksearch to search the largest Wikipedias. It misses almost 200 other Wikipedias + all >500 other Wikimedia projects. We have another tool with which to check an IP's cross-project edits at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php but for reasons I don't understand, about half the time it doesn't work right (I don't know if it's a tool problem or a database problem). When we say something has only been spammed to a particular project, we really don't know if that's true or not. For instance, there are 1000s of external links on en.wikiquote; longtime spam-fighters here will recognize some familiar domains. Until we have much better tools for tracking spam Wikimedia-wide, I think we need to keep using meta -- if a link is inappropriate and has been spammed uncontrollably on one project we should default to blacklisting it across all projects.
I think the local blacklists are best for cases where an otherwise appropriate link is spammed uncontrollably on one project but other projects still wish to use it. There was an Italian art site for instance that did this a while back (I don't remember the domain). It was encyclopedic, but the site owner's persistence in spamming it everywhere across one project became intolerable. It was blacklisted here, but then other projects started complaining. It would have been useful to swap it from the meta list to the local list in this case.
Finally, I'll note that there's a big backlog at Meta; the only admin working on it is reluctant to even blacklist x-wiki stuff, so I suggest blacklisting here, then taking it to meta.
And please, can I talk one of our fine admins here into standing for Meta admin? I'm sure other Meta admins would appreciate the helping hand. --A. B. (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • reset

Swore I'd not be back here! Not that interesting but I was here before so I do know a bit about this aspect of the project. So - a Meta perspective. Guidelines certainly mean that we really only should be looking at disruptive persistent cross wiki link placing for a start. Really en wp only links should be dealt with on the local blacklist - it ain't hard!

Yes there is a backlog (the en wp admins that were active there seem to be awol) however a couple of us have started picking up threads (& indeed blacklisting domains).

Be patient and help us out - some of the discussions we are coming to afresh and are quite hard to work out what is really going on. I'm even inclined to say some should be closed and re-listed for clarity.

I'll do what I can but I am active on more than just Meta so have things to do. If you want me here is not the best place for contacting me - Meta or Commons would be better, mail is availble. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

http://spam.euromonitor.com

Euromonitor

Accounts

Template:Vandal
Template:IP vandal light IP works for Euromonitor [27]
Any thoughts on the links? --Hu12 23:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're selling reports and other merchandise – clearly spam. - KrakatoaKatie 17:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

http://spam.localrestorations.com/

Accounts

Template:IP vandal light

Has been added to New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Carolina, Tomato, Remediation, and Spinach within the space of one hour, not just as EL's but as links from place names. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

yet more garden-variety spam..

I suspect this spammer has a big garden of sites he'd like to add, these are the ones I found today...

Template:IP vandal light

--Versageek 21:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Template:Anchor[reply]

formalid.com

Adsense pub-4977285132140452

Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 11:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

http://spam.wexfordweb.com

Template:Spamlink

Spammers

MER-C 12:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

http://spam.recentnews.us

Template:Spamlink

Spammers

ccwaters 14:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also : Template:Spamlink ccwaters 14:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

http://spam.free-encyclopedia-online.com

Adsense pub-3372801561704177

Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 21:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Template:Anchor[reply]

http://spam.nonstopbiztalk.blogspot.com

Adsense pub-0852699588793814

Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 21:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

More IP-hopping pron linkspam

Spammer

More so-called porn-star "official sites". Videmus Omnia Talk 23:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Template:Anchor[reply]

biblewalks.com is back

I hadn't checked on this in a while and found it had found its way in to numerous articles again - again from single purpose accounts. There are 3 good faith occurrences on article pages that I have left.

Template:Spamlink

Accounts apparently focused only on promoting biblewalks.com:

Spam blacklist request (permanent link). -- SiobhanHansa 19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisting refused (permanent link). -- SiobhanHansa 10:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Done -- after more discussion, now blacklisted on meta as it was cross-wiki spammed on both en and he.wikipedia. --A. B. (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

netforu.org and visaforu.com

Adsense pub-7701073308242782
This is a low content site that has been repeatedly added to Visa (document), the IP users have a habit of removing content from the article and modifying or deleting other users discussion page comments if said comments reflect negatively on the inclusion of their site..

Template:Userlinks
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
and many other IP's in this range.. --Versageek 13:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adsense pub-7701073308242782

Spam sock accounts

Template:Vandal
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal lightcross wiki spam IP
Template:IP vandal light Vandalism account
Template:IP vandal light Vandalism account
Template:IP vandal light Vandalism account
--Hu12 10:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, 59.92.86.109 tried to delete both the WPSPAM entry here[28] and the COIbot report.[29] --A. B. (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And 59.92.71.110 also tried to blank the user talk page here[30] -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Continued vandalism; 59.92.87.54 blanked project pages. [31][32]--Hu12 14:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-wiki spam:
--A. B. (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Done -- both are now blacklisted on meta. --A. B. (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anchor

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Aug&oldid=1142659641"