There seems to be an operating presumption that websites with the word 'Travel' in them are always spam. That's a fair enough general principle, but I do request that each individual case be checked on its own merits. There have been two users who have removed links to Travel Victoria from various articles on Victorian towns and cities, unjustifiably I believe. I have had the following conversations: first and second, and I'm placing a comment on this site so that this can be discussed publicly and so that, if the links in question (most of which have been removed already) are generally considered to be valuable additions to the articles in question, spamfighters can in future be referred to this discussion. Does anyone, having read the two conversations, nevertheless believe the links should be removed and if so why? GSTQ 22:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That's just pre-judging the situation. I wasn't the one who added the links, I'm defending their right to be there. For the record, I have no connexion with Travel Victoria. GSTQ 01:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
144.137.50.13 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
144.137.51.189 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
144.137.53.195 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
144.137.3.109 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
144.137.15.187 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
144.137.4.41 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
144.137.49.8 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
121.44.203.143 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
59.167.186.173 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
59.167.68.91 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
I'm not sure I follow everything in the post by Hu12. How can you tell any one of the above policies has been breached by anyone at all, let alone the site owner or operator? Isn't this jumping to conclusions? Adding a whole lot of links to a site does not in itself constitute spam, vandalism, conflict of interest or anything. It's true Wikipedia is not a repository of links, but adding these links is not making it that. As I've pointed out before, the links are not indiscriminate. They're made to the relevant section of the site in each case. GSTQ 05:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I really wasn't feeling sorry for the chap who'd gone through & added all the links. I am aware of all those policies. I was feeling sorry for the articles themselves that are all losing out on valuable links. Wikipedia could be better if they were added. Ergo, per my argument, adding or restoring the links does not equal spam. They are not the same. And you shouldn't just be naming umpteen policies in a row without more. That doesn't prove anything. Instead, you should be showing why each policy applies to this particular place. That is the point which everyone who has removed these links is trying to evade. It's about the content of Wikipedia, not about how it got there. What if we had no links to AllMusicGuide on album pages and someone went through and added links to all of them? We'd get exactly the same Wikipedia as we've got now. And yet according to all the arguments I've seen so far those links should be removed because that kind of activity is spam. I really can't be bothered going back through and putting them all back in, even if I were confident they were going to stay. There is more important editing I can do. But what have you got against the links when they add value to an article? GSTQ 03:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for re-adding the link. I am not going to contribute any more to this talk page after this post, but I do wish to defend myself against a number of unjustified allegations which have been made.
First, forum shopping is not leaving messages on multiple (read: two) talk pages. It is leaving messages on administrators' talk pages about administrative decisions (not editing decisions).
Second, as for your allegation of "internal spamming", it sure sounds like a bad thing, but I don't quite think I've crossed the line as once enunciated by an arbitrator: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine... Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." I think two conversations with two editors who have actually edited the page is a reasonable amount of communication.
Third, a distinction exists between adding an external link to a page 193 times and adding an external link to a page 193 times for the purpose of promoting a website. Only the latter is spam ipso facto: see here (although the former may be spam for another reason). Moreover, point three in the External link important points was complied with by the person who added the 193 links. This fact appears to have been completely ignored.
Finally, I do not appreciate it being said that "policies mean so little" to me. Making such an allegation when I am trying to have a discussion in the light of those same policies, apparently because our interpretations of the policies differ, is insulting. I think that the policies on assuming good faith (both on my part and on the part of the alleged spammer), and also on merely repeating rules without justifying them in light of individual circumstances have played far too small a rôle in this discussion in particular. GSTQ 02:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
On Ira Losco, somebody keeps adding the link to her MySpace in the article.
http://www.myspace.com/iralosco claims to be the official site. However, http://www.iralosco.com has no links to her MySpace at all, and the about section in the latter is just copied from the former's bio section, so I believe the latter is the official site.
Judging by this, would it be right to remove it, or does it stay based on the line at the top of the guideline "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject..."? ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ ( userpage | talk) 13:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well if you really wanted to prove that www.myspace.com/iralosco is official you would have searched the official page. You didn't. The official page does not have a links page so you stop there?! Quoting Ira Losco herself from her message board,
"Nickname: IRA LOSCO 18:54 on 8/2/2007
Subject: Hey Guys!!!!
Hey guys sorry it's been a long time since I posted a message here!!!! Hope to see some familair and new faces in Nadur this Saturday...please visit www.myspace.com/iralosco and add yourselves in the friends section!!! Very soon it ill be looking similar to the site and videos will be available on it...Videos will also be available on this site...see you soon! Hugs Ira
Check for yourself. Email her contacts and get confirmation if needs be - before removing the link again.
Ilenia_D
If you even missed the message board no wonder you didn't find a reference to myspace!!!! Scroll down to the bottom of the page and there is a link called.... surprise! 'Message Board'. I've even posted date and time of the message, more than that I do not know what you want as proof. Myspace compliments the official website and that is why it should be included. As to whether Ira Losco implies it's an official myspace .... hmmmm .... get to the message board?!?!
Adsense pub-9588274242501467
202.177.186.18 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
210.214.91.194 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
61.17.226.112 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
202.177.185.81 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
210.214.91.202 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
202.177.186.169 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
210.214.91.188 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
http://www.bsnl-broadband.com
http://www.bsnl-internet.info
--
Hu12
21:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Mcmohd20 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
59.144.74.100 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.22.118.173 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
59.144.69.194 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
59.144.74.128 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
59.144.85.245 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
59.144.77.246 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
59.144.73.74 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
--Found the most of these as a result of Femto leaving the live links. Exelent!
Hu12
22:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
59.144.85.245 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
59.144.77.246 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
59.144.73.74 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
--
Hu12
22:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Can someone else please help (a) keep an eye on Victoria2007's contributions and (b) figure out how to constructively deal with this problem editor? It's pretty obvious that he or she works for NewsMax.com as 99+% of his or her edits consist in adding links to NewsMax.com to various articles. Further, the links often are added with text identifying NewsMax.com as the source of the information when it's usually wire reports from the Associate Press or Rueters. When used as references, the date is always misformatted, showing me that he or she doesn't even care enough to check his or her edits and learn from mistakes. Two of us have left messages on his or her Talk page to no avail. -- ElKevbo 01:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Ezine articles is a frequently linked-to site with self-published articles:
Authors submit articles for free and ezinearticles makes its money off web ads. The incentive for authors is either to showcase their writing (starving writer looking for gigs) ... or get a link back to their web site (SEO types):
Picking an article at random:
was added to Game tester by 221.38.194.8 ( talk · contribs) several days ago. [1]
Looking at the linked-to ezine article itself, click on the author's name to pull up a list of that author's 25+ articles:
Looking at 221.38.194.8 contribution history leads to interesting link additions:
Accounts known to have added these links:
Adsense ID# 6502115418074451
Affected articles:
While I think most of the ezinearticle.com pages don't meet our criteria for external links, I think we gain more by working through them slowly and identifiying spammy domains and spammer accounts than by just deleting ezinearticles.com links wholesale and blacklisting ezinearticles.com. -- A. B. (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Adsense pub-9623655437671280
Vburgess (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
209.76.85.74 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
Spammed in by Vburgess ( talk · contribs). There are 12 other links in articles. (see here). I'm not sure if they are legit or not, and I'm not sure if they have been added recently or not. Thanks —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
After your warning it looks like the spammer switched to an IP to dodge the final warning. All that remain now looks legit, however they were all added by SPA's during article creation. -- Hu12 13:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
A city like Eugene, Oregon ends up with a million embedded links to various organizations. ( Like this) I once attempted to encourage the writing of articles by removing the embedded links and making them into redlinks with references, ( Like this [2]]) thinking that if an organization isn't notable enough to have an article, it probably shouldn't have a link either, and that I would eventually remove the redlinks. Others disagree. The article looks like a directory. Am I taking the concept too far? Does anybody have any suggestions? Katr67 03:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Embedded titled links are not appropriate per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Link titles. So I think replacing such inline external links with article redlinks is exactly what should be done. And if it's not worth getting tied up in a debate over this, the external links can be kept as a bracketed citation-style 'reference' (which they are not, they're still mere web directory links, not citations for the article content). Not at all too far if you ask me. If anybody has a problem even with this approach, well, they're wrong. :) Femto 14:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I have been watching this very persistent link spammer for some time. All spamming activity is to the justlearnmorsecode.com web site and the current count is: 30 linkspam adds, 10 warnings from multiple editors, and a couple blocks from an administator. Here is the suspected puppet list in chronological order:
This user has just started to become very nasty (see User_talk:GerdLivJalla). I think it is time to black list the justlearnmorsecode.com domain. ( Requestion 00:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC))
[3] (35 links in articles as of now)
Added by at least 1 user account and 2 IPs associated with this link:
I'm heading off to bed, I would appreciate it if someone else takes off with this one. Thanks! —— Eagle101 Need help? 06:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think the links to [4] from the same places look pretty thin too. -- BozMo talk 08:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
List_of_German_Jews is horrible: needless external links to hundreds of people with perfectly good internal articles on them. -- BozMo talk 08:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Going through these I found template spame again: see: [5] I guess there will be more (one user per template): can everyone watch out for it. -- BozMo talk 08:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC) [6] was an older template spam by the same guy: not easy to track. -- BozMo talk 09:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Second and third opinions are greatly needed here. Especialy since this statement { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Progress_4GL#Rewrite]. It's been notably a haven for Single purpose account's who's only contributions are to "progress" related articles, and becomming more evident there are substantial WP:COI and Advertising COI taking place. related Progress Software-- Hu12 10:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently engaged in a debate over on the Talk:GIF article with someone I view as a spammer. Would be grateful for either support or a slap on the wrist telling me to stop being over-zealous :) GDallimore ( Talk) 10:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I often remove spam sites that seem to be nothing but a thrown together collection of (usually copyright violating) articles, with some adverts; clearly a money making idea. But what about www . iwarrenbuffett . com? I have removed this multiple times; not the least reason is that it simply copies (without Credit) Warren Buffett for some, but not all, of its pages; a disallowed and doubly pointless link. But there are no adverts. Can anyone speculate on why such a site exists, and why anyone would go to any trouble spamming it? Notinasnaid 10:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Came upon this.. {{SpamD|*[http://www.flowerpossibilities.com/encyclopedia.html Flower Encyclopedia]|}} .....?-- Hu12 21:49, 28 February 2007 UTC
User:Official Wiki Member spammed mixtapekings.com on one page; though it should be mentioned here in case more is done. 71.128.189.184 00:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC) (really User:JesseW/not logged in)
Adsense pub-6370375015371772
landofcode.com
68.160.213.65 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
68.160.237.122 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
--
Hu12
19:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[10] looks very suspicious. how do others feel? JoeSmack Talk 05:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
125.253.35.55 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
203.164.92.122 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.253.35.2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.253.33.208 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.253.34.253 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.253.33.108 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
203.164.91.78 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
211.29.245.155 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
211.29.246.221 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.255.20.236 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.253.35.111 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.253.35.116 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
203.164.55.22 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.253.32.239 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
203.164.91.154 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
203.164.91.173 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
203.164.54.67 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
203.164.55.82 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
165.228.220.97 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
84.144.107.38 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
139.168.148.183 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
218.185.83.42 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.253.33.188 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.253.33.128 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.253.33.123 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
any chance of a blacklist?--
Hu12
15:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Can someone else please look at the links to africanelections.tripod.com? There, last time I checked, 352 of them, and I'm automatically leery of tripod.com links to begin with. -- Calton | Talk 05:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Ounceofprevention.info seems like spam but I am not quite sure, What do you think? - Marcusmax 14:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Some of the External links in the article Detroit seem like spam. What do you think? - Marcusmax 00:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought this was cute. (Notice the subdomain of the spammed url). Nposs 18:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Can someone else please look at the links to fact-sheets.com? They don't look very useful to me, in general, and I can't figure out if they are a reliable source or not. Thanks. Deli nk 21:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
*.moviesbuzz.com
Spammed by:
All of the content I have checked on the site is copyvio, much of it taken from Wikipedia. Many of the links added in fact led to articles copied from Wikipedia without proper citation. Latest addition: added content copied from musicbuzz (to the article talk page) and added link to the website - even though the content itself had originally been copied from the Wikipedia article being spammed. That IP in particlar appears to be beginning an alphabetical spam of all the copied material on musicbuzz. It seems like a good potential blacklist (but from what I understand, and admin has to propose it. Right?) Nposs 18:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The moviebuzz.com data above was deleted today by:
I appreciate that since it prompted me to dig a little deeper to see who owns this site and what else they own:
Irix Solutions
No 19 , 1st Floor
LB Road , Adyar
Chennai 600 020
India
Tel: 42606277 / 88 / 99
Irix Solutions sites (no links on Wikipedia at present except for the first site):
Irix Soutions clients (no links on Wikipedia at present):
Adsense: 3598831818424842
The IP addresses above all traceroute to:
Whois records
-- A. B. (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, a search of our site landed us in this page! we have not spammed wikipedia. also we never deleted the post earlier as you say. Now what needs to be done to remove this. Also we would add a source thank comment in our website. But i would like to repeat that we have not spammed. The links are not added by us.— 219.64.138.38 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.61.191.81 Puzzling. -- CliffC 02:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Could someone look into the possibility of blacklisting the urls constantly being added to Lingerie and Generic drug? I've asked for semi-protection on those pages, but I think that just might shift the target of this spammer. Robotman 1974 00:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
If a spammer uses multiple accounts/IPs, how should the problem be reported? Conceivably none of the accounts would ever get to a level 4 warning, so it seems like AIV might be the wrong place. --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is the proof that such self-declared "spam-fighters" as A. B. have been vandalizing Wikipedia. While deleting links from classical Indian dance, our dear over-zealous spam-fighters have nevertheless left the promotional and commercial link to dancevillage.org (which only link to Barnes&Nobles shop!) and closed their eyes on the fact that the eventsindia link was about volleyball, ceramics, anything but classical Indian dance.
I believe that the admins have to seriously look into cases of vandalizing Wikipedia under the pretence of cleaning the "spam". Jag Ju 11:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Another sock of User:Santap, I presume. Don't feed. I'm sure A. B. can provide a better outline of this case if necessary. This should speak for itself:
Femto 14:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
So I changed it, but I think the lead needs to be trimmed anyway. Xiner ( talk, email) 21:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone like to confirm that axing the whole "Practitioners of sustainable architecture" section of Sustainable architecture will only improve the article? It looks like a spam magnet to me. ✤ JonHarder talk 22:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
After polishing up articles on terms for fine art printing ( Giclee, Iris printer, ect) I found that searching buzz words such as "Giclee" and "fine art print" take you to sections of articles and even whole articles on artist and galleries that seem to be spam/COI. A common practice seems to be galleries putting up pages for them selves and for the artist they represent and then they linkspam by linking the artists and the galleries to other topics as "See also" instead of "External link". An example is:
It seems that all these edits are being made by the same editor using different sockpuppets and IPs. I'm not sure if I should just delete/speedy these things or go the route of a "Notability" tag and discussion (How much good faith should I be assuming when the pattern seems pretty obvious?).
In general a modern less notable artist's “notability” consists of some galleries advertising campaign. People supporting articles about these artists put forward the opinion that advertising as a form of notability. A “massive advertising campaign” is not one of the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Should that notability be discounted and the artists entry on Wikipedia be speedied if no other sources are put forward? Fountains of Bryn Mawr 02:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The site www.obsessedwithwrestling.com Obsessed With Wrestling is now linked to over 1100 articles in Wikipedia. Looking on Google, pretty much all of the hits for this website are self-referential, meaning it doesn't seem notable per WP:WEB. Is it time to remove the links? (I hate patrolling wrestling articles, BTW - they're always bait for the worst kind of vandalism and spam.) RJASE1 Talk 03:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
|obsessedwithwrestling.com
At first I couldn't figure out if the contributions by 24.21.148.229 ( talk · contribs) were spam or not. Then I went through the edit log and looked at all the diffs. Nothing but lots of avalanche and climbing related external link additions:
A whois on all of those domains reports an owner of Jim Frankenfield of Internet World (i-world.net) in Salt Lake City, Utah. Some of the edits done by this user even changed existing competitor and US.gov links to his own sites in a sort of spammer vs. spammer warfare. I have added a spam warning but I haven't reverted any edits. Request advice. ( Requestion 18:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC))
Few more IP's
24.21.148.229 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
68.46.22.79 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
69.59.204.86 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
4.242.3.102 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
66.58.222.84 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
4.242.3.161 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
12.21.208.18 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
12.21.208.22 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
12.21.208.200 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
4.242.3.53 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
--
Hu12
15:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Sam mishra (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
69.109.170.45 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
69.109.171.10 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
69.109.127.108 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
69.86.44.129 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
64.164.147.119 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
64.241.37.140 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
--
Hu12
19:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Adsense pub-3372801561704177
321books.co.uk
MNewton2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Pgrieg (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
85.210.236.201 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
85.210.50.6 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
81.179.130.155 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
Mal4mac (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
81.178.102.148 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
81.178.83.68 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
85.210.48.186 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
81.179.92.190 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
85.210.191.119 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
85.210.245.233 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
Seems to be a pure adsense spam site, with objectional ammounts of advertising. Looks to be a scrapper site. These are a few spam socks lobbying for their inclusion.--
Hu12
20:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Moved conversation from 321books not a spam or scraper site:
The Cousin dictionary was generated from Project Gutenberg sources, not Adelaide or wikipedia. I define scraping as illigitimate copying, therefore this was not scraped. Also, this was very much a side project. Anyway, the pages you initially deleted -- Tesco book pages, biographies... are all original. I know that 'cause I created them myself. Note, don't come back and say I scraped the Faraday (or any other) biography, because I know someone else has scraped MY original text. The scraping you accuse me of, in relation to the wikipedia page, must have gone the other way, if at all. I'm prepared to give wikipedia the benefit of the doubt. A wikipedia user may have just have happened to generate the page in a similar way. I take such scraping of my pages as compliments, rather than an invitation to attack. You should be able to find out the original creation date of both pages and that should prove me to be the originator. Note also, I've had college professor's in America linking to some of my biographies (Socrates for instance, if you want to do a link:). If educational institutions, and experts to boot, are happy to link to my pages (adsense or not) why isn't Wikipedia? I have had run ins with Wikipedia admins before, so I decided to only do anything that wikipedia admins might not consider whiter than white under this name in case you guys get really heavy -- if you can ban my URL I'm sure you wouldn't think twice about banning my name. I don't want my main 'contributions' name to be trashed.— Pgrieg ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
Sorry Hu12 you are simply wrong about external linking. To quote the TOS "You should avoid linking to a website that you own... If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page..." "You should avoid..." is ambiguous, if this said "You should not..." then I would agree with you.
On the Jamie Oliver Amazon link -- Amazon allow you to use their content, they even provide software to copy their text. I haven't copied any non book review content (other than Cousin) and most of the book reviews are original -- see the Simon Singh and Roger Penrose reviews, for instance. Oliver's book was me trying to raise my pitiful amount of traffic by quickly putting a best-seller on site. You need to look at more than one page to get a feeling for a site!
I'm doing nothing fancy with the IPs. What's a sock puppet? Sooty? They are dynamic IPs given to me by my ISP. If you delete them on block then you will get an awful lot of compliants from ordinary users -- of course you can dismiss themas Sith apprentices, but then wikipedia will be well on the road to death by admin. Sith apprentice ? :-) This is how conspiracy theories get started.
"...bad-faith edits made to abuse Wikipedia's for personal gain in spite of requests to do otherwise." Nope, edits were made to link to pages of useful information. To find the time and resources to write these pages I need a source of income. I'm not a teenager supported by his parents who can afford to work for Wikipedia for free all the time -- though I have contributed. Your terms of service do not explcitly disallow linking to my own pages, or to pages using advertising. Also why did you delete ny user name? Are you worried you are losing this argument and acting in bad faith? Stomping on my freedomn of speech -- the founding fathers are turning... PgriegAgain 12:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Response:
I already pointed out the 'you should avoid linking' TOS. This is ambiguous and does not disallow linking. I should not be banned for doing something that is not disallowed. It's like being thrown into prison for no reason that anyone can give me. Very [Kafka]esque.
On sock puppetry:
Thanks for the explanation of sock puppets. I didn't know what a sock puppet was or that WP:SOCK existed. I took a sock puppet approach after I thought Notinasnaid had been too harsh on me and was worried about him raining on my whiter than white edits. So I thought I'd make grey area edits using another name. In fact the TOS specifically says you can create sock puppets "to avoid harrassment". So you banned me for following your TOS to the letter! Note these are not "Bad hand, white hand" accounts. An admin might think one was bad hand, but could not justify it becuase the wikipedia rules are too ambiguous. Also the TOs says"If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject." I think I'm doing that, my intention was certaionly to do that. Note any subject I edit is "hot" because the admins make everything "hot" for me.
On Vandalism:
The site I linked to was notable to me, and the pages certainly relevant. Many pages remained linked to for months without subject expertes deleting them. The only serious deletions I've had have been from admins who used admin-related allegations against me. I think I have refuted these allegations, repeatdly, and have made most of the points that refute these allegations in this thread.
"hiding vandalism" [11] This was adding a great link and making the other overly-wordy links more succinct. This is an improvement, not vandalism.
"Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning " this edit to Jeffmcneill's statement. I simply deleted errors of fact - SWOT and five forces are comparable, I do restore more links than just my own. I thought you encouraged deleting errors of fact in wikipedia? Although, fair enough, I should probably have deleted less and responded more -- but one gets a bit sick of ploughing through endless threads of discussion. Again, wikipedia should have a strict rule 'don't delete any discussions', maybe?
"Adding copious repetitive or meaningless content to a page" [12] Is four lines copious? Could you point out the repetition? Could you say how it is meaningless? I though the information was useful - Which? magazine is the UK equivalnet os US Consumer reports -- very useful to know for anyone making a transatlantic hop! Also provides evidence that I don't just add links, but provide useful information.
"Modifying internal or external links within a page so that they appear the same but link to a page/site that they are not intended" [13] No it isn't. Nice bit of copy editing that I did, though. Copy editing, adding information -- who said I only added links?
I take the point on edit summaries, I'll try and do better. I tend to ignore or rush through non-essential text fields.
In summary, I hope you at least accept I have made enough points to allow me to be reinstated. If so, I will endevour to abide by the spirit of the law that this comprehensive and informative thread has introduced. The case for the defence rests here. - PGrieg
" On the Lot is the title of a recently-announced upcoming reality show competition produced by Steven Spielberg and Mark Burnett. The show, which will air on FOX, will feature filmmakers competing in weekly elimination competitions..." I have already removed film promotions from the program article (four "examples", ), Director, Rocket and Imagination. Keith mosher might be an autobiographical article to promote another; Five-Minute Funnies and User:Albylicious are dubious. An odd link is floating on Talk:Jersey Devil. I think we will see more examples, and people using one entry to justify their own entry. Perhaps watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Linksearch?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=films.thelot.com%2Ffilms%2F&namespace= Notinasnaid 20:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
heres a fun project Wikipedia:Dead external links. and [24]-- Hu12 15:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Out of interest last year and this year we took a snapshot of 2000 (last year) and 4000 (this year) main WP articles for the Wikipedia:2006 Wikipedia CD Selection. What is really noticable is the number of vandalised pages in an instantaneous snapshot like this: last year it was 3 this year it is about ten times higher (we have hand-checked through N so far). Sad. I wonder if the trend will keep going up? I don't think spam is getting better either. Maybe it is time to semi-prot wikipedia but much of it was from named users. -- BozMo talk 16:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
*.greylizard.net Adsense pub -5389895745956830
Static1635 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pages spammed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjuna
Sock #1: 213.121.243.194 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Sock #2: 172.159.50.37 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
I'm out of reverts on the Fiesta page. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. Nposs 20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not a spammer, I thought my site was relevant and couldn't understand why the links kept vanishing... dumb or what? Now I have my site links on the spam page and on longer with the relevant content of wiki, this seems stupid to me. I made the Anjuna Beach Goa page what it is, as there was no mention of the hippy movement there, I feel that my site about Anjuna in '94-'96 fits in with that page, now that I added the hippy content. It seems as I run Google Ads that I am considered a spam site, but they are there to pay the hosting only, what else to do when you are skint? I don't expect anyone really cares about these comments. I started an account with wiki so that I could be told if my content was bad, I should have been told proper before I got stuck in the sin bin. Regards, Justin
Anyone know why the link count didn't get updated for yesterday? RJASE1 Talk 01:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Today I came across a November 2006 BBC article, Virus creators target Wikipedia, about links added to the German Wikipedia which were intended to induce users to install malware on their computers. I don't recall that this topic has come up here. Recently I was following "removal instruction" spam and was receiving unexpectedly stiff resistance which I just attributed to WP:OWN. However, maybe we need to be more vigorous about cleaning up "removal" site links.
Many of the virus, spyware and other malware articles include one or more links to removal sites. These typically are not recognizable (not Sophos, Norton, etc.). Since readers place a great deal of trust in Wikipedia, it is important that these sites are trustworthy. I'm not sure how one does that, other than sticking with the big-name anti-malware firms. I am beginning to think all of these links need to be removed. Wikipedia is not a tutorial, so is there any need to suggest how to remove malware?
Can we arrive at a consensus on removal instruction links?. Is Wikipedia in the business of recommending cures? If so, how does one determine the reliability of the cure? After kicking this around a bit here, it should probably go to the discussion side of the WP:EL article. To see example articles, look at articles in Category:Computer viruses and Category:Spyware or others in the Category:Malware tree. ✤ JonHarder talk 01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Abendigoreebs (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Biolane (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
66.92.24.40 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
Only noted one legit reference added to
Transportation in New York City. Others all come are by
Abendigoreebs. Doesn't seem to be a spammy site, however when this many are added and only one seem's to be legit, I question weather this is a
WP:RS. Mabey others can have a look.--
Hu12
18:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
goldenskate.com
Gsk8 (
talk ·
contribs) was indef blocked for spamming links to this site - after I cleaned up all the spam,
Kolindigo (
talk ·
contribs) reverted all my cleanup and added the links back. A site to keep an eye on.
RJASE1
Talk
01:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Got a lot of these. Most, if not all, appear to have been placed by 207.114.33.3 late last year. The reviews seem to be about one paragraph long followed by links to amazon.com to purchase. I don't personally think these are anything more than commercial spam. Anyone other views? IrishGuy talk 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
OK. Now they are down to 37 links, all of which are interviews. I left the interview because someone above said those might be worth keeping. If anyone else thinks they are spam, feel free to remove them. All the double links have been removed. IrishGuy talk 22:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Several articles having the link to Fantasybookspot.com also have goldengryphon.com by 75.18.188.213 (added 24/10/2006). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm crossposting this here for comment per Eagle 101. The article in question seems to be mainly a vehicle for spam. RJASE1 Talk 05:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_screen_capture_software has been festering for 9 days and it needs to be closed by an impartial administrator. The spammers and socks seem to be popping out of the woodwork on this one. ( Requestion 06:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
There has been a limited amount of discussion about the appropriateness of linking every game to this website, but the results in my mind don't justify it. Take for example TnS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) whose last 500+ edits have been to link mobygames through alphabetical lists of games. Many of the links lead to virtually contentless pages: diff leads to a cover shot and paragraph of advertising that was already on the article. The most extensive discussion so far has been Talk:MobyGames#Why_link_to_MobyGames.3F where other examples of weak links are given. Clearly no consensus has been reached, and yet the linking goes on. There even appears to be a specialized template for the addition of the links. Maybe I have just missed the boat on this one. Nposs 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Special:Linksearch now includes namespace. Hurrah! Guy ( Help!) 01:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Valarch has been pretty active in spamming eatsprouts.com recently [28] [29] [30] [31]
Is this where I take this? Montco 03:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I was page patrolling and ran across Michael Charles Smith. If we run across pages like this (and I've seen worse) that seem to be blatant political campaigning, do we treat them as spam? Or do we flag them as POV and move on? I wasn't around Wikipedia during the run-up to the last election so I'm not sure. I'm leaving the page alone for now. RJASE1 Talk 03:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Our link spamming friend from NewsMax.com is back. The User:Victoria2007 account was blocked so now he or she is using the User:Xyz456 account. It's the same general pattern but he or she is not directly referencing NewsMax.com in the text accompanying the links. And he or she is not screwing up the date. This spammer is definitely evolving (or being intelligently created, if you prefer). -- ElKevbo 04:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Davodavy is the newest incarnation of our NewsMax friends. Same MO, complete with "NewsMax.com reported..." inserted into articles and improper attribution of AP and Reuters stories to NewsMax. --
ElKevbo
17:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Spam Event Horizon Also the ref section in Fathers' rights is full. -- Hu12 02:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Posting a notice here per Eagle 101. Seeing and more pages added from nifty.com, a Japanese hosting service. Some links seem legitimate, but, since nearly all of the web pages are in kanji, not English, I can't tell which are good and which are spam. Someone with some knowledge of Japanese should probably take a look at the links to sort out the spam. RJASE1 Talk 04:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Wp:el#Foreign-language_links most likely cross spammed from other wikis, should be blacklisted if thats the case. ----- Hu12 10:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Adsense pub-3937876919487297
bulkoil.com
Would like a third opinion on the discussion Talk:List_of_vegetable_oils#Citations. Obvious Links normally to be avoided, however these are being used in citations. Problem is The small write ups on those pages seem to all be coppied/scrapped content from, 3rd parties including wikipedia. Site also contains extensive ad lists "for sale" which are classifieds. Guess back in july, it was self nominated as a feature article, and there was a heavy push to cite extensively, this site might have been easy, but a poor choice. A strong WP:OWN issue here.-- Hu12 09:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC) `
I don't know where to report this, so I guess I would ask here.
I appear to have found an advertising company that has been commissioned for writing articles related to Tim LaHaye's Left Behind Games. The user is "Modern branding solutions" (contributions here), and what appears to be their website indicated they are writing Wikipedia articles for their clients (see the "services" section.) An earlier, very unprofessional verison of Left Behind Games they wrote has already been deleted, after I tagged it, but the user is still here. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 19:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks like he's back. He noted on his talk page that he would get a new account, and it seems someone called " MBiddick" has been recreating the article (see warnings on his talk page.) Unsuprisingly, "MBiddick" is the name on the e-mail address for contacting Modern Branding Solutions. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 21:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The spam whitelist is being reviewed. Many old entries on the whitelist are bring removed. As the whitelist is an important part of spam fighting, I invite everyone here to help in the review: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/review. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 22:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Any one know the reason for the change in the spam logo? old one seemed crisper.-- Hu12 08:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Marked this an an Advert. Reads like a PR piece. The last revision by a single purpose account added a consideral ammount of POV, and spammy information. Someone want to take a look at the article Interactive Brokers, before its re writen back to stub status..LOL-- Hu12 20:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Revived from the archives, seems edits like this which Promotes commission rates, trading discounts, attractive interest rates and account minimums are inpropriate for inclusion and unencyclopedic. Happyzone ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may have a WP:COI with Interactive Brokers.-- Hu12 10:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Spammed by:
All owned by Deal Group Media, consist of exceedingly low content "reviews" with an emphasis on SEO and ad revenue. A.B. gives a nice overview of these issues on the talk page of the primary spammer (from last November). Is this a good blacklist candidate? Nposs 15:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Adsense pub-1564638458129247
writinghelp-central.com
Sfawcett (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Single spammer and Webmaster of the site writinghelp-central.com, also spams talk pages.
[38],
[39]--
Hu12
07:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's a twist: User:James McStub is making many many edits removing links from articles and leaving edit summaries that say "rm spam per WP:EL and WP:SPAM", but I checked a few and s/he seem to have removed several legitimate links and is leaving broken references in his/her wake. Thanks for looking into it. Katr67 03:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I put in a request at ANI, but I'll do it here too--can someone mass-revert the deletions the user made until the disputed links can be examined and removed in a *sane* manner? Thanks. Katr67 18:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
What are the WikiProject Spam people's thoughts on User:Dscannon's contribution history? Is there any reason we should keep any of his edits, considering this pattern of obvious abuse? -- SpamWatcher 03:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and had User:Qxz and User:AzaToth make us a little add to go in the User:Qxz/Ads template. I'm hoping that this will help spread some awareness about spam, and what we can do to stop it (this project and related guidelines). Hope everyone enjoys the irony. —— Eagle101 Need help? 06:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
There have recently been edits to WP:COI changing the spam wording from always avoid linking to your own site to avoid or exercise great caution when linking to your own site. Additional opinions would be appreciated. -- Milo H Minderbinder 12:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's another one for the team. Who is Michael Weidokal? This should give you a solid clue. How does Michael edit Wikipedia? With multiple accounts, of course. Time to delete ISA (International Strategic Analysis)? I think so. This spam alert has been brought to you by... The SpamWatcher 03:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's another firm that seems to think highly of itself. The article is Opinion Research Corporation. The major anonymous contributors to the article have a very suspicious edit history. I am especially concerned about this particular effort to erase a section that outlined a controversy. I think we should salt this article and let some independent Wikipedians take a new stab at it, if they feel so inclined. Then, someone might also want to take a look at how the Vinod Gupta article is being similarly embattled. I don't want to take sides on that one, because I am merely The SpamWatcher 03:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
A couple of different IPs are adding links to www.bookyards.com pages in articles on authors. The links go to a site that mirrors WP, but claims copyright for itself. One article that has the link is Homer, see [41]. --Akhilleus ( talk) 01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
65.93.190.99 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
69.159.116.16 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
69.159.116.92 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
70.55.255.165 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
69.159.117.234 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
70.48.99.10 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
69.159.116.185 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
Victorlamp (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
69.159.116.104 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
65.92.176.192 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
69.159.116.85 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
--
Hu12
06:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I trust that the article on Anderson Analytics should be deleted, based on its creator's edit history and the topics of interest of its most recent anonymous editor? Link spam, too! Another obvious violation brought to you by The SpamWatcher 16:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Wondering who Jon Marchant is, one might turn to Google. Looks like he works for a firm called BRMB. I wonder if that company has a Wikipedia article about itself? I wonder who is writing that article today? Take action, spam fighters. I am off to find more perpetrators. This is The SpamWatcher 16:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It's always interesting to see an anonymous user take such an active interest in 57% of the edits on an article. Even more interesting when they point out that their company is a competitor of larger, more reputable firms. Time to delete Compete, Inc, WikiProject Spam, and don't forget all those spammy "competitor" references, too. This has been another noble service of The SpamWatcher 16:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow. This one takes the cake. Check out the edit history of the article for Global Market Insite. It's dominated by single-purpose anon IP edits, plus a ton of edits from User:Irishlaw. About half of all of Irishlaw's edits relate to the GMI article that he created. His own User page states: "I work at GMI (Global Market Insite, Inc.) in the Internet marketing and web development department. I perform in-house SEO - SEM." Looks like he's expanding that "in-house" search engine marketing to "our house". Please take care of this, WikiProject Spam. Until next time, I am The SpamWatcher 17:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The article about Infosurv was created last year by a user named Infosurv. The article's references are nothing but press releases. I thought WP:CORP says a company needs to have multiple, independent sources to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia? Don't forget the helpful edits of this anon IP and this one. You have been "surved" by The SpamWatcher 17:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding me on this one. Reads like an advertising brochure. Created by a single-purpose account who likes uploading pictures of Jack Myers. Then, the article is nurtured by a user called MediaVillage who has been busily adding spam links to mediavillage.com all over popular Wikipedia articles. Oh, guess who owns MediaVillage? I'll give you a hint. His initials are J.M. and the surname rhymes with Spamyers. Chalk up another one for The SpamWatcher 17:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I have some real problems with the way Maritz Inc. was created ( by a single-purpose account), and has for the most part remained completely unsourced, unverified, and unchanged since that original creation. All kinds of fantastic, spammy claims are made ("known as one of the largest providers in the world of market research to the automotive industry", "an industry leader by taking advantage of the huge growth of rewards programs", and "well-known within the industry as a leader"). The article also claims that the company once boasted "nearly 7,000 employees", but says nothing of the current number. All of these claims need to be cited, and this doesn't count as an independent source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business brochure, and I am The SpamWatcher 01:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Seems that we have a single-purpose account junking up Wikipedia. This offends The SpamWatcher 16:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Why am I not the least bit surprised that the article NBRII was created by a User named NBRII? Come on, Wikipedians. We're being overrun with companies writing their own Wikipedia articles. Isn't that against the rules? Still undeterred, I am The SpamWatcher 02:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The article about Quantcast was set up by a user who spent 27 of his 30 edits on the Quantcast topic. When Calton came and put a speedy on the article, it was amazing to see how new single-purpose accounts appeared out of the proverbial woodwork to save the article from deletion. Not to mention, the most recent edits to the article come from our old friend, the Compete, Inc anon IP guy.
While we're at it, our busy contributor Reznor34 (the creator of the Quantcast travesty) has recently made edits to the article about Helmi Technologies. When we look into the history of that little article, we see a lot of activity by Jrisku and his anon IP friend. Could they possibly be serving any other purpose than to promote their company Helmi, thanks to Wikipedia's free server space and traffic pipeline?
We've been hoodwinked by these professional spammers. But now they've met The SpamWatcher 02:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed the pervasiveness of links to this site from airport articles. In many cases, I believe that the addition is a good faith edit as the page as a list of destinations served. However, I do not know how reliable this is. I remove the links from sites that I patrol but hesitate to knock this off on other pages. Its clearly commercial. Some of the editors could be spamming, but I have no evidence. There are likely reliable non-commercial sources, although they may be time-consuming or even impossible to located in the cases of some foreign airports. Any thoughts? Montco 00:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
pub-8182832343810773
http://www.randomdirectory.com
http://www.antique-information.info
http://www.architecture-information.info
24.58.21.225 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
12.96.182.148 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
--
Hu12
16:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The small town of Spilsby has a bicycle shop.
I started by AGF and being polite with this spammer, but it's clear that he (I always think of spammers as male) is uninterested in WP and is merely keen to spam his shop, making crude attempts to hide this by altering existing, legitimate links. I no longer bother to be polite with him. I know that there's a mechanism for automangling particular URLs, and ask that it is invoked for spilsbycycles.co.uk. If this isn't the place for such a request, please tell me where I should go. Thanks. -- Hoary 02:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. It needs to be blacklisted. You say: Someone here might propose it for the blacklist. Huh? I just did propose it for the blacklist, on 15 March 2007. Apparent effect of my proposal: Zero. If I could have made my proposal this in a more effective way/place, I'd like to know how/where. "A bit of an overkill"? Well, I think this Spilsby Cycles twit is "overkilling" by attempting nine times to spam his silly shop. No, actually ten times; because, predictably, he did it again:
How many more times may he attempt to spam before blocking his domain is no longer "overkill"? Another ten times? Twenty?
Or should I "assume good faith", thinking that the use of yet another IP to simultaneously insert a link to a bicycle store and delete a worthwhile link was just the ignorant mistake of some well-intentioned person who honestly believes that a bicycle shop is of encyclopedic significance? -- Hoary 03:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
SORRY
hi, i just want to let you know that i am sorry for the edits i have made to the "spilsby" town page on wikipedia. i kept putting the link to that cycles shop on there, then when i checked back a few days later etc it had vanished. i only kept putting it back on because i thought i must have entered it wrongly. i did'nt know that there were messages for me about it, i have only just clicked on this 'discussions page' and did not know you could talk to other users.
from now on all of my edits will be for the greater good, i have turned over a new leaf, and don't want to upset anyone. i have added a picture i took of the bus stop being built in the town, and a few other links (non-commercial) about the town etc.
i am not up on all this technical stuff, and did'nt mean to make you mad.
many thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:C.thompson
I am having some difficulties with User:Shanlung who persists in adding links to his personal pet page to the Parrot article. I've reverted him twice and tried to explain on the talk page why the link does not belong but to no avail. (I also notice he's been trying to put this link on the African Grey Parrot page as well). Can I keep reverting if its spam? I don't really like to but it really isn't an encyclopaedic link. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
As this person has sadly discovered, WP has ways of automatically preventing the creation by anyone of any link to a domain.
This measure isn't one that is or should be taken lightly. But it's taken, all right. Who takes it? Where does one apply for it to be taken? I want to apply, I don't know how to apply, I've looked for but not found this information, and I'm surprised not to see it mentioned in the project page. -- Hoary 05:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
cystinuria.org
International Cystinuria Foundation
associated with
http://www.randominc.net/
Banannafish (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Randominc (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
--
Hu12
07:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Didn't catch this immediatly. No spam intended here... a handful of appropriatly placed links to a 501(c)3 nonprofit is not what i consider to be spam.
Note: Lately there are link-additions to The European Library from people (e.g. User:Fleurstigter; sent me an email from an address at kb.nl) and IP addresses (e.g. User:194.171.184.4) of the "Koninklijke Bibliotheek" ( Dutch Royal Library). The Koninklijke Bibliotheek is one of the participants in the project. I have notified the acconts that they have a conflict of interest, and have removed links to this site added by people in this range. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Why can't I refer to resources that are stored in Europe's national libraries? How can you call that spam?
Fleurstigter
11:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
What better place than a library (most def. a gateway to many national libraries!!!) to find quality resources. If this is not allowed you should also ban comparable (public + commercial) sites.
Why does it matter who points users of wikipedia to these high-quality library resources? We are talking here about LIBRARIES: isn't great that libraries and wikipedia finally find each other?
Furthermore, I think it's unacceptable that one person logs my doings by the second, and delete my contributions in the 2nd second - not even give others a moment to take a look at it, place a comment, etc.. Fleurstigter 17:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments. You may like to take a look at this Village Pump post [ [42]] Have a nice afternoon, Fleurstigter 16:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Adsense pub-6543611023224625
trainweb.org
Noroton (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Seems several topics on this have arrisen
User_talk:Noroton#Trainweb.org,
User_talk:KyraVixen#Don.27t_you_dare and
Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Adding_links_to_organizations_to_articles_about_related_things, worth keeping an eye on--
Hu12
22:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
(copy from WT:EL)
Hu12, and NE12, the two of you have shown yourselves to be more interested in conspiring and confronting rather than in coming to consensus. Instead, try to work with editors you have disagreements with.
All of you: Review the discussion at User_talk:KyraVixen#Don.27t_you_dare, in which you'll see an example of two parties coming to a reasonable agreement through consensus. Noroton 23:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
(proceed from discussion on WT:EL
Noroton, thank you for your response. I have indeed asked you to avoid canvassing. I am sorry, I am not sure the word canvassing is correct, I meant the mass addition of links (either internal or external) to articles that are not directly linked to the subject, my excuses if I did not make myself clear. Still, regarding these edits, you have been asked to read WP:SPAM (e.g. in the warning that I have provided you). The first paragraph of WP:SPAM states:
"There are four types of wikispam: advertisements masquerading as articles, wide-scale external link spamming, bandspam (tangential references instead of disambiguation which promote some entity) and "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian" spamming or, " canvassing" (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting"). Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities.".
Your first mass-addition of these links fall under "wide-scale external link spamming", in your last additions you again add the external link, this time in a tangential reference and an internal link, again spamming (under the wikipedia definition) them across the articles. I also asked you to add content to the article, and gave you examples of data that could be added. I don't see why this piece of information is more important than the contents I suggested to you. Commuters use the station day in day out. They must see the pamphlet on the station wall. For me the information you added means nothing, there are many other things that I might want to know about the station, but which have not been added.
So your external links were, once again, removed because you were spamming them. I am sorry if my terminology confused you but I hoped/expected that my earlier explanation was clear enough. You reacted quite fierce on my first removals of these external links, and I have, IMHO, kept my patience in explaining to you what I meant. Also your initial reaction on these latest removals ("Don't you dare") is again angry. Please understand that apparently these edits don't get understood (also seen two other editors show their concern), and may need a good explanation or discussion before they are performed, or maybe they should not be performed. Hope this explains. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 00:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
As citations, it's not so much an addition of spam links but an addition of the same information to many pages, where it is better presented on Metro-North Railroad. This is the same basic issue as with the external links. -- NE2 00:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that we all indent with a ":" at the front of each paragraph and a "*" at the start of each comment. It's going to be difficult enough responding to three or more different people, and it makes it much easier to follow individual threads. Indent one more time with an extra ":" when you're responding to an already indented paragraph.
Taking your points in the order you made them:
I removed several links from this article that are online cycle sellers, there doesn't appear to be any encyclopedic reason for having them. It's clear (to me anyway) that these links have been added in order to allow people to buy the bike online - one of the links even says "they ship all over the place".
The links were quickly replaced by the creator of the article, who claimed they should stay "as there are no wikipedia articles about the companies". Well, they're cycle sellers, so I doubt most/all of them are even notable enough for their own article. That's not a reason to keep linkspam.
Can anyone with a better knowledge of linkspam rules take a look at this article? Even though it's well-written I think it's being used as a sly sales device for these bikes. Crazysuit 05:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I've recently become involved with this project and in my spare time I've looked at a number of articles either on the to-do list or tagged with Clean-Up-Spam. Some of the links are clearly spam - however some are just either just inappropiate or just not relevant. E.g. The last article I looked at ( Lytham St Annes) the only spam was links to a few domestic photo sites showing a user pictures on a holiday there. While these type of links are not-relevant they are not (what I would call Spam). On this talk page all the items under discussion are about spam where as on the to-do list there appears to be a 50/50 split between spam and just cleaning up the external links. Is the scope of this project to solely clean up spam links - or to generally tidy up external links? -- Rehnn83 Talk 10:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Another SEO contest to watch for. found its first article appearance on wikipedia, Shopautodotca seocontest, of course has been salted. The criteria is to place 1st in Google / MSN / Yahoo for the term "shopautodotca seocontest" and have a link back to shopauto.ca with keywords used cars, used car classifieds targeted. So be prepared for auto spam.-- Hu12 05:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Adsense pub-4071863667757591
163.244.63.120 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
163.244.62.121 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
163.244.63.122 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
163.244.62.123 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
83.71.10.17 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
87.192.16.135 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
172.178.95.230 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
Note this is tricky, Spam added by 163.244.62.123
@ 10:18, 21 March 2007 then within a minute 163.244.62.121 posted
@ 10:19, 21 March 2007, either its meatpuppetry of or a very clever spammer.--
Hu12
10:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Adsense pub-8877273450423438
These are all
aggregated results pages, which are
Links normally to be avoided--
Hu12
15:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Marked this an an Advert. Reads like a PR piece. The last revision by a single purpose account added a consideral ammount of POV, and spammy information. Someone want to take a look at the article Interactive Brokers, before its re writen back to stub status..LOL-- Hu12 20:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Revived from the archives, seems edits like this which Promotes commission rates, trading discounts, attractive interest rates and account minimums are inpropriate for inclusion and unencyclopedic. Happyzone ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may have a WP:COI with Interactive Brokers.-- Hu12 10:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted the edits made by Jph4239 as they were all adding links to content at thepalestra.com. Can someone please double-check that I've done the right thing and have properly judged those links to be link spam? Thanks! -- ElKevbo 21:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
ya'll might want to give User:The_Transhumanist/Virtual_classroom#Yuser.2C_on_fighting_linkspam a once over before it goes live later today. please give it a few minutes. UPDATE: ITS NOW LIVE, go forth and edit! JoeSmack Talk 22:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Adsense pub-4719146971986307
Interesting scheme:
.pressarchive.net is apparently some kind of "library" of articles, except that every pressarchive link on WP is a link-through to an article on
http://www.moviehole.net/. The pressarchive frame remains active and a pop-up ad is loaded in the background. The interviews are rather low quality and perhaps not even worth linking in most instances. Here is the tricky part: over 240 links have been slowly inserted by single-purpose contributors who add around 10 links to the site - and nothing else. "Link added to interview" is all that is found in the edit summary. List of spammers so far:
Frankly, there is no need to link to this site - ever. It just links through to other sources (well, only moviehole, as far as I can tell) and adds some advertising. This seems like a good candidate for the blacklist. At the same time, there is the problem of the linked article - which in all cases I checked was an interview. All the ones I checked were really low quality, but I'm not sure how to go about replacing all 240+ links at the moment. Nposs 03:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
If anyone can suggest a course of action, I'll gladly get to work. Frankly, the extent of the spam is great, I have no idea where to begin. Nposs 02:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Its nothing more than Iframes site, it has no other purpose thant to capture traffic from moviehole.net's content. Not sure why they agreed, The webpage below is displayed from Moviehole.net, with their permission. Moviehole.net is not affiliated with PressArchive.net. but this essentionaly a no content site and should by all means be removed, or replaced with the correct moviehole.net url. This is a clear violation under #9 " aggregated results pages." in Links normally to be avoided -- Hu12 01:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Its not as straight forward as it seems, your handling it the right way. my reason for suggesting the BL, is two fold. One because its obviously unmanageable spam, and second each instance will need replacement or removal in order to edit, which can be done by the hundereds of regular editors who frequent those afflicted articles, rather than by one individual. It certainly should be a bot task if, if your not comfortable w/blacklisting it. It should be added to Shadowbot's list, however I don't know of a bot that can remove existing links.-- Hu12 03:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I have recently noted users warn spammers and include links to the site that the user is spamming. They say that because they add spam to the domain IE spam.foo.com that kills the link it does not it still helps the spammer instead inclose the site's link in <nowiki></nowiki> tags. Betacommand ( talk • contribs • Bot) 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Wait a minute; let me get this straight... Betacommand left a {{ uw-spam2}} warning on Requestion's talk page because Requestion included the link in a spam warning on the spammer's talk page?? Does anyone else have a major problem with this? -- Satori Son 20:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the debate of whether we should be including active links to spam sites in talk page warnings is a good discussion, but I want to make one point perfectly clear: the use of a stock warning template in an attempt to force an experienced editor to conform to your personal editing preference is totally and completely unacceptable. That is not what the warning templates were designed for. Don't template the regulars. And the use of the {{ uw-spam1}} warning on an obviously active and informed member of WikiProject Spam is particularly distasteful, to say the least. -- Satori Son 13:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Because of a possible conflict of interest, I would welcome someone else taking a look at Special:Contributions/207.96.193.174. For those (most) who do not know, "imposition" is a generic term for something professional printers do, and also the name of a specific software product which does it from Ulti mate Technologies. Notinasnaid 20:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it. Notinasnaid 20:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It appears to no longer allow searching by namespace and I can no longer specify a search as *website.com Note the explicit lack of a dot/period between the * and the letter. It rejects these as "Wildcards may appear only at the start of the hostname." which appears to be counter-intuitive to *blah.com not having the wildcard at the start. I used this long ago to find websites that were *-some-words.tld, but I can no longer do that now. Anyone else notice this behavior or have an explanation for it? Kevin_b_er 03:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
If no-one has any objections I would like to tidy up the To do list. I've noticed that there are a number of articles/comments that date to last year. Reviewing these articles (dated 06) the link spam problem seems to have been removed/eradicated. If no-one objects I would like to review each item on the to-do list and where appropiate remove the respective comments. I'd also like to jiggle the items on the list. If I have a free moment I'll pick an article tagged with Clean-Up Spam and review it. I'd like to add a section for tagged articles that have been reviewed and ammended (and then untagged). Ideally I'd date stamp and article and then after a week or so remove the article from the list. Just my thoughts/plan. If anyone feels I'm stepping on their toes or generally going about it the wrong way, please let me know. -- Rehnn83 Talk 14:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like it might be usefull to y'all. Sorry for the antispam spam. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 14:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm very tied up off-Wikipedia and I am unable to follow up on this. Someone with good sleuthing skills and a suspicious nature yet also possessing a strong sense of AGF (a self-contradiction?) may want to look into this meta request. See my very brief response there at:
I had started to look into this several days ago but had to drop it. I got just far enough along for my instincts to tell me there was something odd going on -- possibly a Joe job. -- A. B. (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
There are 88 of these links spammed all over articles. IrishGuy talk 00:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that [133] have added their links to over 60 articles. I'd remove them myself but I don't know if people here use an automated system to do that? Crazysuit 02:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to ask about the links for London's Transport Museum that appear in a lot of articles relating to the London Underground, nearly every article on that topic has several external links to the site. The worst is probably Leslie Green which has nearly 40 external links.
I have to say - LTM is an excellent site and contains thousands of photos of great encyclopedic value which aren't available anywhere else, but I think the practice of including several links in each article is a but much. Crazysuit 02:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The actual points made in the project page are seldom much of a problem, but the way the page is written it:
This appears to be a suggestion not to engage in discussions. If you think someone is spamming and you revert the edits, you should be able to discuss the matter on the merits. It might actually turn out that you're wrong. If you approach the matter in a way that suggests even discussion is some kind of surrender to the other party's "luring" of you, you're not likely to be open-minded. If you are encouraged to ignore the "assume good faith" injunction, you're not likely to be open-minded. I was going to suggest that something be added to this sentence to rectify its insinuations, but a better alternative would be to delete the sentence: It's subject is what attitude you should take, not what you should do or know, and it encourages a bad attitude. I don't understand what use this sentence is, so I propose deleting it.
Incidentally, after encouraging "spam fighters" to avoid discussions, we get this at #14 in the list of "how to identify spammers":
So it's preferable for "spam fighters" to avoid discussion, but a sign of a spammer if that editor avoids discussion. Do I detect the whiff of a double standard here?
I think the following or something like it should be added somewhere near the top of the article:
With the serious problems identified above, these quotes, taken together, give an overall bellicose tone to the project page and encourage bellicosity in the "spam fighting brigade". Taken one by one, there is no problem, but the article is meant to be read as a whole, and when editors read the article as a whole, it has the effect of encouraging closed minds and abrupt editing, even rudeness. Again, I myself would agree with much of what is said in these quotes, but I object to the overall tone when you take them together (boldface has been added to particular parts of quotes for the sake of clarity; occasionally in parentheses I've added other points):
I've assumed here that the writers of the project page don't really want to ignore argument, be closed-minded and act in a bellicose manner. But the way the page is written clearly encourages that behavior. I suggest toning down the language of all or nearly all of the phrases quoted in the second part and making the change I suggest in the first part. Noroton 01:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
While I strongly disagree with Noroton's hyperbolic assertion that the text of our Project page is a "scandal", the page is probably overdue for minor improvements and possible softening of some of the tone. I have begun making some hopefully uncontroversial updates. Obviously, if any Project member strongly objects to any changes I make, please revert and start a new section here to discuss. Thanks, Satori Son 15:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Response to A.B. There's a pattern of rudeness here, and for the purposes of an example, I'm going to cite some of my experiences with this crowd. Every time Requestion puts his fingers to his keyboard he makes my case (I swear, he's not a sock puppet of mine). And he does it perfectly in accordance with the project page. And none of you call him on it. To me, that indicates a problem, but you don't hve to believe that to simply believe the project page needs editing. You list Hu12 as one of your responsible parties. Well, not in my experience. I wasn't terribly courteous with him either (I think I was just barely civil) and that wasn't right on my part, but I had every reason to feel abused, given the treatment I was getting. From his talk page (under "Learn some mannters" (sic):
(emphasis added in boldface)
As a matter of right as a Wikipedian, I get to have an assumption of good faith (even if I make a mistake) unless there's some good reason to doubt it. Various people associated with this Web page have stated or implied that because I added a lot of links to some pages that (a) I'm something called a "convicted spammer"; (b) I'm "doing business"; or (c) that I even have some connection with the Web site I linked to (DirkBeetstra questioned that on my talk page, although overall I've been able to work with him). It's not worth addressing (a) here or Requestion's other insults, but look at Hu12's conduct: He reverts without giving me any chance to talk the matter over with him, and when I object to his behavior, and argue (on KyraVixen's talk page) that I have good Wikipedian reasons for my edits, his only (sneering) response is that I might be "doing business." As if adding links to a state ombudsman agency is in some way a moneymaking enterprise for me. As if I never showed any interest in Connecticut articles. As if I showed any pattern at all of doing anything improper other than wanting to help readers in my area by pointing people interested in the local train station to the state ombudsman agency with responsibility for it. And as if I didn't have reasons for doing that, damn good ones in my opinion. For that — for doing what I think is helpful and right, mind you — I'm insulted.
And when I look at the project page, I see a possible reason why.
I shouldn't have to explain all this. I shouldn't have to assert that my standing is at least as good as any of yours. And neither I nor anyone else should have to be treated that way. You don't have a license to ignore WP:CIV and WP:AGF. Because you've taken on a certain task in Wikipedia, it doesn't exempt you from Wikipedia rules. Noroton 17:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Virtual classroom: On fighting spam
Under "Make sure it's spam before you remove it" he writes:
Interesting ideas. Noroton 19:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, we are are arguing about if there is or if there isn't a problem... Lets just move on a bit. I've noticed people (myself included) treat spammers with a little less then the utmost respect. I think it's important that we reinforce the public-relations side of this equation. I think it's important to keep the image of the project spic-and-span.
On a personal note, I also think it's important to treat everyone, including the lowest vandal, with respect. It's even more important when they don't deserve it. Then again, I'm guilty of not living up to my own ideals on occasion.
So what do we do moving forward? I think we are extremely good at the investigation, but while the community relations side is good in most regards there is some room for improvement. Lets build a new section on the project page about how to interact with "The Spammer" with some positive recommendations. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 22:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyone care to comment in this discussion? I was attempting to reduce the large number of links at the page, including an entire section of blogs (most of which had Google ads). OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous editor using multiple IP addresses has been busily adding links to American-universities.info and US News & World Report to American college and university articles. For example, he or she edited the University of Florida article from 69.105.111.141, Louisiana State University from 69.105.30.29, and the University of Tennessee from 69.105.96.88. The USN&WR link isn't bad but I don't see any value in the other link, particularly when added at the same time as the USN&WR link. Can anyone else help me figure out what's going on? -- ElKevbo 13:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I really need a second opinion over at the Consumers Union page. Impa ( talk · contribs) continues to add links to their organization’s website, the International Myopia Prevention Association. In addition to WP:EL and WP:COI, the edits also violate WP:NPOV.
I have tried to be welcoming and courteous, and to direct the editor to relevant policy, but the link spamming still continues. Please read the exchange at Talk:Consumers Union. Just requesting a double-check by someone to confirm my assessment of the link, and, if you agree, a little back-up watching the article. Thanks, Satori Son 13:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Caterhamlink keeps adding linkspam to promote his own business directory http://www.thecaterhamlink.com. The only edits he has made to articles involve adding linkspam, and he also appears to be adding the same linkspam with the IP 81.86.73.193.
He claims his business directory should be added because "our website carrys for free information about events and charities", and "We are trying to spread the word to boost attendance at local fundraising events" which is an admission that he's merely using Wikipedia for promotion. That would be bad enough, but it's a lie. His website contains the following statements:
The front page even has "Business Directory" banner. Even Caterhamlink's own username is promoting his business.
He also claims that "we carry only a dozen or so business adverts to pay for the site", except thecaterhamlink.com is part of http://www.localarealink.com/, which states any affiliated websites (ie thecaterhamlink.com) will "earn a realistic and sustainable income generated from paying advertisers... a great business opportunity with a realistic and achievable income potential... creating an income for you that will be consistent and long lasting... total 1st year's income = £20,250... with the potential to earn a serious income...", etc.
I think that proves that this definitely isn't just some non-profit community website for charity events. Two other people have warned him about adding these links, but he continued, so I added subst:uw-spam3 to his talk page and explained why. He has now returned and is still adding the link. I've now added subst:uw-spam4, and I'm letting the spam fighters here know, if you can add this to your watchlist because I'm not on Wikipedia much to keep checking.
(He was included on User:Veinor/Link count/February 23, 2007 for adding 10 links). 172.188.70.108 18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
--
I am a new user and enjoy using Wikpedia despite my experience in trying to add my website as a link. But in my travels around the site I come across websites like mine linking to their town which should fall foul of the same rules I did and why I thought it was OK to link to my site. I don't feel comfortable deleting their links and giving warnings as I don't think it's my place to do so, so my question is how/where do you report spam links like this? Example - town of Sanderstead has two business directories in it's links. Thanks Caterhamlink 13:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
...I can't figure this out. Please see the contributions of these two editors (probably the same person):
Elaborate way to advertise skapsis.blogspot.com? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deli nk ( talk • contribs) 13:49, March 26, 2007
Yes re-added yet again, Skapsis needs a closer look. WP:WINAD WP:NEO-- Hu12 03:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Links added:
Accounts known to have added either or both of these links:
Affected articles (English Wikipedia only):
-- A. B. (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Extensive spamming last year of a wide range of telecom and other articles not stopped by blocks and warnings:
Domains:
Accounts adding these links:
Back again this month with a new IP after laying low for 3 months.
-- A. B. (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
These links were spammed across many U.K. articles in 2006. In January, we got heartfelt pledges not to add these links anymore without first getting permission on article talk pages:
I guess our friend forgot; see:
-- A. B. (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Using a search from Bishonen's user page, I happened across a link to bookrags.com. This site is linked over 500 times. I don't have much time to look further into this, but the pages I've seen so far are primarily copies from wikipedia articles (including the article on which the link resides), other encyclopedias, or subscriber-only content (examples: [135] [136]). Additionally, there is a sufficient level of advertising to raise suspicions. I don't have much time to spare for any sort of thorough investigation, but if someone is sitting around with spare time on their hands, this might warrant a closer look. ScottW 23:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
DWWW, 95.5 Star FM, RW 95.1, DZRL 540, DYRL 540, DZXQ and 92.7 Eazy FM. Are any of these real, or notable?-- Hu12 00:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be an operating presumption that websites with the word 'Travel' in them are always spam. That's a fair enough general principle, but I do request that each individual case be checked on its own merits. There have been two users who have removed links to Travel Victoria from various articles on Victorian towns and cities, unjustifiably I believe. I have had the following conversations: first and second, and I'm placing a comment on this site so that this can be discussed publicly and so that, if the links in question (most of which have been removed already) are generally considered to be valuable additions to the articles in question, spamfighters can in future be referred to this discussion. Does anyone, having read the two conversations, nevertheless believe the links should be removed and if so why? GSTQ 22:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That's just pre-judging the situation. I wasn't the one who added the links, I'm defending their right to be there. For the record, I have no connexion with Travel Victoria. GSTQ 01:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
144.137.50.13 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
144.137.51.189 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
144.137.53.195 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
144.137.3.109 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
144.137.15.187 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
144.137.4.41 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
144.137.49.8 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
121.44.203.143 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
59.167.186.173 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
59.167.68.91 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
I'm not sure I follow everything in the post by Hu12. How can you tell any one of the above policies has been breached by anyone at all, let alone the site owner or operator? Isn't this jumping to conclusions? Adding a whole lot of links to a site does not in itself constitute spam, vandalism, conflict of interest or anything. It's true Wikipedia is not a repository of links, but adding these links is not making it that. As I've pointed out before, the links are not indiscriminate. They're made to the relevant section of the site in each case. GSTQ 05:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I really wasn't feeling sorry for the chap who'd gone through & added all the links. I am aware of all those policies. I was feeling sorry for the articles themselves that are all losing out on valuable links. Wikipedia could be better if they were added. Ergo, per my argument, adding or restoring the links does not equal spam. They are not the same. And you shouldn't just be naming umpteen policies in a row without more. That doesn't prove anything. Instead, you should be showing why each policy applies to this particular place. That is the point which everyone who has removed these links is trying to evade. It's about the content of Wikipedia, not about how it got there. What if we had no links to AllMusicGuide on album pages and someone went through and added links to all of them? We'd get exactly the same Wikipedia as we've got now. And yet according to all the arguments I've seen so far those links should be removed because that kind of activity is spam. I really can't be bothered going back through and putting them all back in, even if I were confident they were going to stay. There is more important editing I can do. But what have you got against the links when they add value to an article? GSTQ 03:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for re-adding the link. I am not going to contribute any more to this talk page after this post, but I do wish to defend myself against a number of unjustified allegations which have been made.
First, forum shopping is not leaving messages on multiple (read: two) talk pages. It is leaving messages on administrators' talk pages about administrative decisions (not editing decisions).
Second, as for your allegation of "internal spamming", it sure sounds like a bad thing, but I don't quite think I've crossed the line as once enunciated by an arbitrator: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine... Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." I think two conversations with two editors who have actually edited the page is a reasonable amount of communication.
Third, a distinction exists between adding an external link to a page 193 times and adding an external link to a page 193 times for the purpose of promoting a website. Only the latter is spam ipso facto: see here (although the former may be spam for another reason). Moreover, point three in the External link important points was complied with by the person who added the 193 links. This fact appears to have been completely ignored.
Finally, I do not appreciate it being said that "policies mean so little" to me. Making such an allegation when I am trying to have a discussion in the light of those same policies, apparently because our interpretations of the policies differ, is insulting. I think that the policies on assuming good faith (both on my part and on the part of the alleged spammer), and also on merely repeating rules without justifying them in light of individual circumstances have played far too small a rôle in this discussion in particular. GSTQ 02:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
On Ira Losco, somebody keeps adding the link to her MySpace in the article.
http://www.myspace.com/iralosco claims to be the official site. However, http://www.iralosco.com has no links to her MySpace at all, and the about section in the latter is just copied from the former's bio section, so I believe the latter is the official site.
Judging by this, would it be right to remove it, or does it stay based on the line at the top of the guideline "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject..."? ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ ( userpage | talk) 13:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well if you really wanted to prove that www.myspace.com/iralosco is official you would have searched the official page. You didn't. The official page does not have a links page so you stop there?! Quoting Ira Losco herself from her message board,
"Nickname: IRA LOSCO 18:54 on 8/2/2007
Subject: Hey Guys!!!!
Hey guys sorry it's been a long time since I posted a message here!!!! Hope to see some familair and new faces in Nadur this Saturday...please visit www.myspace.com/iralosco and add yourselves in the friends section!!! Very soon it ill be looking similar to the site and videos will be available on it...Videos will also be available on this site...see you soon! Hugs Ira
Check for yourself. Email her contacts and get confirmation if needs be - before removing the link again.
Ilenia_D
If you even missed the message board no wonder you didn't find a reference to myspace!!!! Scroll down to the bottom of the page and there is a link called.... surprise! 'Message Board'. I've even posted date and time of the message, more than that I do not know what you want as proof. Myspace compliments the official website and that is why it should be included. As to whether Ira Losco implies it's an official myspace .... hmmmm .... get to the message board?!?!
Adsense pub-9588274242501467
202.177.186.18 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
210.214.91.194 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
61.17.226.112 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
202.177.185.81 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
210.214.91.202 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
202.177.186.169 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
210.214.91.188 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
http://www.bsnl-broadband.com
http://www.bsnl-internet.info
--
Hu12
21:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Mcmohd20 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
59.144.74.100 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.22.118.173 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
59.144.69.194 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
59.144.74.128 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
59.144.85.245 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
59.144.77.246 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
59.144.73.74 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
--Found the most of these as a result of Femto leaving the live links. Exelent!
Hu12
22:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
59.144.85.245 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
59.144.77.246 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
59.144.73.74 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
--
Hu12
22:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Can someone else please help (a) keep an eye on Victoria2007's contributions and (b) figure out how to constructively deal with this problem editor? It's pretty obvious that he or she works for NewsMax.com as 99+% of his or her edits consist in adding links to NewsMax.com to various articles. Further, the links often are added with text identifying NewsMax.com as the source of the information when it's usually wire reports from the Associate Press or Rueters. When used as references, the date is always misformatted, showing me that he or she doesn't even care enough to check his or her edits and learn from mistakes. Two of us have left messages on his or her Talk page to no avail. -- ElKevbo 01:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Ezine articles is a frequently linked-to site with self-published articles:
Authors submit articles for free and ezinearticles makes its money off web ads. The incentive for authors is either to showcase their writing (starving writer looking for gigs) ... or get a link back to their web site (SEO types):
Picking an article at random:
was added to Game tester by 221.38.194.8 ( talk · contribs) several days ago. [1]
Looking at the linked-to ezine article itself, click on the author's name to pull up a list of that author's 25+ articles:
Looking at 221.38.194.8 contribution history leads to interesting link additions:
Accounts known to have added these links:
Adsense ID# 6502115418074451
Affected articles:
While I think most of the ezinearticle.com pages don't meet our criteria for external links, I think we gain more by working through them slowly and identifiying spammy domains and spammer accounts than by just deleting ezinearticles.com links wholesale and blacklisting ezinearticles.com. -- A. B. (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Adsense pub-9623655437671280
Vburgess (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
209.76.85.74 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
Spammed in by Vburgess ( talk · contribs). There are 12 other links in articles. (see here). I'm not sure if they are legit or not, and I'm not sure if they have been added recently or not. Thanks —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
After your warning it looks like the spammer switched to an IP to dodge the final warning. All that remain now looks legit, however they were all added by SPA's during article creation. -- Hu12 13:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
A city like Eugene, Oregon ends up with a million embedded links to various organizations. ( Like this) I once attempted to encourage the writing of articles by removing the embedded links and making them into redlinks with references, ( Like this [2]]) thinking that if an organization isn't notable enough to have an article, it probably shouldn't have a link either, and that I would eventually remove the redlinks. Others disagree. The article looks like a directory. Am I taking the concept too far? Does anybody have any suggestions? Katr67 03:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Embedded titled links are not appropriate per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Link titles. So I think replacing such inline external links with article redlinks is exactly what should be done. And if it's not worth getting tied up in a debate over this, the external links can be kept as a bracketed citation-style 'reference' (which they are not, they're still mere web directory links, not citations for the article content). Not at all too far if you ask me. If anybody has a problem even with this approach, well, they're wrong. :) Femto 14:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I have been watching this very persistent link spammer for some time. All spamming activity is to the justlearnmorsecode.com web site and the current count is: 30 linkspam adds, 10 warnings from multiple editors, and a couple blocks from an administator. Here is the suspected puppet list in chronological order:
This user has just started to become very nasty (see User_talk:GerdLivJalla). I think it is time to black list the justlearnmorsecode.com domain. ( Requestion 00:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC))
[3] (35 links in articles as of now)
Added by at least 1 user account and 2 IPs associated with this link:
I'm heading off to bed, I would appreciate it if someone else takes off with this one. Thanks! —— Eagle101 Need help? 06:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think the links to [4] from the same places look pretty thin too. -- BozMo talk 08:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
List_of_German_Jews is horrible: needless external links to hundreds of people with perfectly good internal articles on them. -- BozMo talk 08:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Going through these I found template spame again: see: [5] I guess there will be more (one user per template): can everyone watch out for it. -- BozMo talk 08:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC) [6] was an older template spam by the same guy: not easy to track. -- BozMo talk 09:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Second and third opinions are greatly needed here. Especialy since this statement { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Progress_4GL#Rewrite]. It's been notably a haven for Single purpose account's who's only contributions are to "progress" related articles, and becomming more evident there are substantial WP:COI and Advertising COI taking place. related Progress Software-- Hu12 10:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently engaged in a debate over on the Talk:GIF article with someone I view as a spammer. Would be grateful for either support or a slap on the wrist telling me to stop being over-zealous :) GDallimore ( Talk) 10:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I often remove spam sites that seem to be nothing but a thrown together collection of (usually copyright violating) articles, with some adverts; clearly a money making idea. But what about www . iwarrenbuffett . com? I have removed this multiple times; not the least reason is that it simply copies (without Credit) Warren Buffett for some, but not all, of its pages; a disallowed and doubly pointless link. But there are no adverts. Can anyone speculate on why such a site exists, and why anyone would go to any trouble spamming it? Notinasnaid 10:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Came upon this.. {{SpamD|*[http://www.flowerpossibilities.com/encyclopedia.html Flower Encyclopedia]|}} .....?-- Hu12 21:49, 28 February 2007 UTC
User:Official Wiki Member spammed mixtapekings.com on one page; though it should be mentioned here in case more is done. 71.128.189.184 00:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC) (really User:JesseW/not logged in)
Adsense pub-6370375015371772
landofcode.com
68.160.213.65 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
68.160.237.122 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
--
Hu12
19:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[10] looks very suspicious. how do others feel? JoeSmack Talk 05:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
125.253.35.55 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
203.164.92.122 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.253.35.2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.253.33.208 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.253.34.253 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.253.33.108 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
203.164.91.78 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
211.29.245.155 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
211.29.246.221 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.255.20.236 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.253.35.111 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.253.35.116 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
203.164.55.22 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.253.32.239 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
203.164.91.154 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
203.164.91.173 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
203.164.54.67 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
203.164.55.82 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
165.228.220.97 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
84.144.107.38 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
139.168.148.183 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
218.185.83.42 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.253.33.188 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.253.33.128 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
125.253.33.123 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
any chance of a blacklist?--
Hu12
15:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Can someone else please look at the links to africanelections.tripod.com? There, last time I checked, 352 of them, and I'm automatically leery of tripod.com links to begin with. -- Calton | Talk 05:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Ounceofprevention.info seems like spam but I am not quite sure, What do you think? - Marcusmax 14:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Some of the External links in the article Detroit seem like spam. What do you think? - Marcusmax 00:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought this was cute. (Notice the subdomain of the spammed url). Nposs 18:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Can someone else please look at the links to fact-sheets.com? They don't look very useful to me, in general, and I can't figure out if they are a reliable source or not. Thanks. Deli nk 21:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
*.moviesbuzz.com
Spammed by:
All of the content I have checked on the site is copyvio, much of it taken from Wikipedia. Many of the links added in fact led to articles copied from Wikipedia without proper citation. Latest addition: added content copied from musicbuzz (to the article talk page) and added link to the website - even though the content itself had originally been copied from the Wikipedia article being spammed. That IP in particlar appears to be beginning an alphabetical spam of all the copied material on musicbuzz. It seems like a good potential blacklist (but from what I understand, and admin has to propose it. Right?) Nposs 18:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The moviebuzz.com data above was deleted today by:
I appreciate that since it prompted me to dig a little deeper to see who owns this site and what else they own:
Irix Solutions
No 19 , 1st Floor
LB Road , Adyar
Chennai 600 020
India
Tel: 42606277 / 88 / 99
Irix Solutions sites (no links on Wikipedia at present except for the first site):
Irix Soutions clients (no links on Wikipedia at present):
Adsense: 3598831818424842
The IP addresses above all traceroute to:
Whois records
-- A. B. (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, a search of our site landed us in this page! we have not spammed wikipedia. also we never deleted the post earlier as you say. Now what needs to be done to remove this. Also we would add a source thank comment in our website. But i would like to repeat that we have not spammed. The links are not added by us.— 219.64.138.38 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.61.191.81 Puzzling. -- CliffC 02:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Could someone look into the possibility of blacklisting the urls constantly being added to Lingerie and Generic drug? I've asked for semi-protection on those pages, but I think that just might shift the target of this spammer. Robotman 1974 00:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
If a spammer uses multiple accounts/IPs, how should the problem be reported? Conceivably none of the accounts would ever get to a level 4 warning, so it seems like AIV might be the wrong place. --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is the proof that such self-declared "spam-fighters" as A. B. have been vandalizing Wikipedia. While deleting links from classical Indian dance, our dear over-zealous spam-fighters have nevertheless left the promotional and commercial link to dancevillage.org (which only link to Barnes&Nobles shop!) and closed their eyes on the fact that the eventsindia link was about volleyball, ceramics, anything but classical Indian dance.
I believe that the admins have to seriously look into cases of vandalizing Wikipedia under the pretence of cleaning the "spam". Jag Ju 11:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Another sock of User:Santap, I presume. Don't feed. I'm sure A. B. can provide a better outline of this case if necessary. This should speak for itself:
Femto 14:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
So I changed it, but I think the lead needs to be trimmed anyway. Xiner ( talk, email) 21:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone like to confirm that axing the whole "Practitioners of sustainable architecture" section of Sustainable architecture will only improve the article? It looks like a spam magnet to me. ✤ JonHarder talk 22:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
After polishing up articles on terms for fine art printing ( Giclee, Iris printer, ect) I found that searching buzz words such as "Giclee" and "fine art print" take you to sections of articles and even whole articles on artist and galleries that seem to be spam/COI. A common practice seems to be galleries putting up pages for them selves and for the artist they represent and then they linkspam by linking the artists and the galleries to other topics as "See also" instead of "External link". An example is:
It seems that all these edits are being made by the same editor using different sockpuppets and IPs. I'm not sure if I should just delete/speedy these things or go the route of a "Notability" tag and discussion (How much good faith should I be assuming when the pattern seems pretty obvious?).
In general a modern less notable artist's “notability” consists of some galleries advertising campaign. People supporting articles about these artists put forward the opinion that advertising as a form of notability. A “massive advertising campaign” is not one of the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Should that notability be discounted and the artists entry on Wikipedia be speedied if no other sources are put forward? Fountains of Bryn Mawr 02:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The site www.obsessedwithwrestling.com Obsessed With Wrestling is now linked to over 1100 articles in Wikipedia. Looking on Google, pretty much all of the hits for this website are self-referential, meaning it doesn't seem notable per WP:WEB. Is it time to remove the links? (I hate patrolling wrestling articles, BTW - they're always bait for the worst kind of vandalism and spam.) RJASE1 Talk 03:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
|obsessedwithwrestling.com
At first I couldn't figure out if the contributions by 24.21.148.229 ( talk · contribs) were spam or not. Then I went through the edit log and looked at all the diffs. Nothing but lots of avalanche and climbing related external link additions:
A whois on all of those domains reports an owner of Jim Frankenfield of Internet World (i-world.net) in Salt Lake City, Utah. Some of the edits done by this user even changed existing competitor and US.gov links to his own sites in a sort of spammer vs. spammer warfare. I have added a spam warning but I haven't reverted any edits. Request advice. ( Requestion 18:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC))
Few more IP's
24.21.148.229 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
68.46.22.79 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
69.59.204.86 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
4.242.3.102 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
66.58.222.84 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
4.242.3.161 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
12.21.208.18 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
12.21.208.22 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
12.21.208.200 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
4.242.3.53 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
--
Hu12
15:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Sam mishra (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
69.109.170.45 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
69.109.171.10 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
69.109.127.108 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
69.86.44.129 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
64.164.147.119 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
64.241.37.140 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
--
Hu12
19:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Adsense pub-3372801561704177
321books.co.uk
MNewton2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Pgrieg (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
85.210.236.201 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
85.210.50.6 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
81.179.130.155 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
Mal4mac (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
81.178.102.148 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
81.178.83.68 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
85.210.48.186 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
81.179.92.190 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
85.210.191.119 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
85.210.245.233 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
Seems to be a pure adsense spam site, with objectional ammounts of advertising. Looks to be a scrapper site. These are a few spam socks lobbying for their inclusion.--
Hu12
20:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Moved conversation from 321books not a spam or scraper site:
The Cousin dictionary was generated from Project Gutenberg sources, not Adelaide or wikipedia. I define scraping as illigitimate copying, therefore this was not scraped. Also, this was very much a side project. Anyway, the pages you initially deleted -- Tesco book pages, biographies... are all original. I know that 'cause I created them myself. Note, don't come back and say I scraped the Faraday (or any other) biography, because I know someone else has scraped MY original text. The scraping you accuse me of, in relation to the wikipedia page, must have gone the other way, if at all. I'm prepared to give wikipedia the benefit of the doubt. A wikipedia user may have just have happened to generate the page in a similar way. I take such scraping of my pages as compliments, rather than an invitation to attack. You should be able to find out the original creation date of both pages and that should prove me to be the originator. Note also, I've had college professor's in America linking to some of my biographies (Socrates for instance, if you want to do a link:). If educational institutions, and experts to boot, are happy to link to my pages (adsense or not) why isn't Wikipedia? I have had run ins with Wikipedia admins before, so I decided to only do anything that wikipedia admins might not consider whiter than white under this name in case you guys get really heavy -- if you can ban my URL I'm sure you wouldn't think twice about banning my name. I don't want my main 'contributions' name to be trashed.— Pgrieg ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
Sorry Hu12 you are simply wrong about external linking. To quote the TOS "You should avoid linking to a website that you own... If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page..." "You should avoid..." is ambiguous, if this said "You should not..." then I would agree with you.
On the Jamie Oliver Amazon link -- Amazon allow you to use their content, they even provide software to copy their text. I haven't copied any non book review content (other than Cousin) and most of the book reviews are original -- see the Simon Singh and Roger Penrose reviews, for instance. Oliver's book was me trying to raise my pitiful amount of traffic by quickly putting a best-seller on site. You need to look at more than one page to get a feeling for a site!
I'm doing nothing fancy with the IPs. What's a sock puppet? Sooty? They are dynamic IPs given to me by my ISP. If you delete them on block then you will get an awful lot of compliants from ordinary users -- of course you can dismiss themas Sith apprentices, but then wikipedia will be well on the road to death by admin. Sith apprentice ? :-) This is how conspiracy theories get started.
"...bad-faith edits made to abuse Wikipedia's for personal gain in spite of requests to do otherwise." Nope, edits were made to link to pages of useful information. To find the time and resources to write these pages I need a source of income. I'm not a teenager supported by his parents who can afford to work for Wikipedia for free all the time -- though I have contributed. Your terms of service do not explcitly disallow linking to my own pages, or to pages using advertising. Also why did you delete ny user name? Are you worried you are losing this argument and acting in bad faith? Stomping on my freedomn of speech -- the founding fathers are turning... PgriegAgain 12:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Response:
I already pointed out the 'you should avoid linking' TOS. This is ambiguous and does not disallow linking. I should not be banned for doing something that is not disallowed. It's like being thrown into prison for no reason that anyone can give me. Very [Kafka]esque.
On sock puppetry:
Thanks for the explanation of sock puppets. I didn't know what a sock puppet was or that WP:SOCK existed. I took a sock puppet approach after I thought Notinasnaid had been too harsh on me and was worried about him raining on my whiter than white edits. So I thought I'd make grey area edits using another name. In fact the TOS specifically says you can create sock puppets "to avoid harrassment". So you banned me for following your TOS to the letter! Note these are not "Bad hand, white hand" accounts. An admin might think one was bad hand, but could not justify it becuase the wikipedia rules are too ambiguous. Also the TOs says"If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject." I think I'm doing that, my intention was certaionly to do that. Note any subject I edit is "hot" because the admins make everything "hot" for me.
On Vandalism:
The site I linked to was notable to me, and the pages certainly relevant. Many pages remained linked to for months without subject expertes deleting them. The only serious deletions I've had have been from admins who used admin-related allegations against me. I think I have refuted these allegations, repeatdly, and have made most of the points that refute these allegations in this thread.
"hiding vandalism" [11] This was adding a great link and making the other overly-wordy links more succinct. This is an improvement, not vandalism.
"Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning " this edit to Jeffmcneill's statement. I simply deleted errors of fact - SWOT and five forces are comparable, I do restore more links than just my own. I thought you encouraged deleting errors of fact in wikipedia? Although, fair enough, I should probably have deleted less and responded more -- but one gets a bit sick of ploughing through endless threads of discussion. Again, wikipedia should have a strict rule 'don't delete any discussions', maybe?
"Adding copious repetitive or meaningless content to a page" [12] Is four lines copious? Could you point out the repetition? Could you say how it is meaningless? I though the information was useful - Which? magazine is the UK equivalnet os US Consumer reports -- very useful to know for anyone making a transatlantic hop! Also provides evidence that I don't just add links, but provide useful information.
"Modifying internal or external links within a page so that they appear the same but link to a page/site that they are not intended" [13] No it isn't. Nice bit of copy editing that I did, though. Copy editing, adding information -- who said I only added links?
I take the point on edit summaries, I'll try and do better. I tend to ignore or rush through non-essential text fields.
In summary, I hope you at least accept I have made enough points to allow me to be reinstated. If so, I will endevour to abide by the spirit of the law that this comprehensive and informative thread has introduced. The case for the defence rests here. - PGrieg
" On the Lot is the title of a recently-announced upcoming reality show competition produced by Steven Spielberg and Mark Burnett. The show, which will air on FOX, will feature filmmakers competing in weekly elimination competitions..." I have already removed film promotions from the program article (four "examples", ), Director, Rocket and Imagination. Keith mosher might be an autobiographical article to promote another; Five-Minute Funnies and User:Albylicious are dubious. An odd link is floating on Talk:Jersey Devil. I think we will see more examples, and people using one entry to justify their own entry. Perhaps watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Linksearch?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=films.thelot.com%2Ffilms%2F&namespace= Notinasnaid 20:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
heres a fun project Wikipedia:Dead external links. and [24]-- Hu12 15:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Out of interest last year and this year we took a snapshot of 2000 (last year) and 4000 (this year) main WP articles for the Wikipedia:2006 Wikipedia CD Selection. What is really noticable is the number of vandalised pages in an instantaneous snapshot like this: last year it was 3 this year it is about ten times higher (we have hand-checked through N so far). Sad. I wonder if the trend will keep going up? I don't think spam is getting better either. Maybe it is time to semi-prot wikipedia but much of it was from named users. -- BozMo talk 16:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
*.greylizard.net Adsense pub -5389895745956830
Static1635 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pages spammed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjuna
Sock #1: 213.121.243.194 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Sock #2: 172.159.50.37 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
I'm out of reverts on the Fiesta page. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. Nposs 20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not a spammer, I thought my site was relevant and couldn't understand why the links kept vanishing... dumb or what? Now I have my site links on the spam page and on longer with the relevant content of wiki, this seems stupid to me. I made the Anjuna Beach Goa page what it is, as there was no mention of the hippy movement there, I feel that my site about Anjuna in '94-'96 fits in with that page, now that I added the hippy content. It seems as I run Google Ads that I am considered a spam site, but they are there to pay the hosting only, what else to do when you are skint? I don't expect anyone really cares about these comments. I started an account with wiki so that I could be told if my content was bad, I should have been told proper before I got stuck in the sin bin. Regards, Justin
Anyone know why the link count didn't get updated for yesterday? RJASE1 Talk 01:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Today I came across a November 2006 BBC article, Virus creators target Wikipedia, about links added to the German Wikipedia which were intended to induce users to install malware on their computers. I don't recall that this topic has come up here. Recently I was following "removal instruction" spam and was receiving unexpectedly stiff resistance which I just attributed to WP:OWN. However, maybe we need to be more vigorous about cleaning up "removal" site links.
Many of the virus, spyware and other malware articles include one or more links to removal sites. These typically are not recognizable (not Sophos, Norton, etc.). Since readers place a great deal of trust in Wikipedia, it is important that these sites are trustworthy. I'm not sure how one does that, other than sticking with the big-name anti-malware firms. I am beginning to think all of these links need to be removed. Wikipedia is not a tutorial, so is there any need to suggest how to remove malware?
Can we arrive at a consensus on removal instruction links?. Is Wikipedia in the business of recommending cures? If so, how does one determine the reliability of the cure? After kicking this around a bit here, it should probably go to the discussion side of the WP:EL article. To see example articles, look at articles in Category:Computer viruses and Category:Spyware or others in the Category:Malware tree. ✤ JonHarder talk 01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Abendigoreebs (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Biolane (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
66.92.24.40 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
Only noted one legit reference added to
Transportation in New York City. Others all come are by
Abendigoreebs. Doesn't seem to be a spammy site, however when this many are added and only one seem's to be legit, I question weather this is a
WP:RS. Mabey others can have a look.--
Hu12
18:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
goldenskate.com
Gsk8 (
talk ·
contribs) was indef blocked for spamming links to this site - after I cleaned up all the spam,
Kolindigo (
talk ·
contribs) reverted all my cleanup and added the links back. A site to keep an eye on.
RJASE1
Talk
01:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Got a lot of these. Most, if not all, appear to have been placed by 207.114.33.3 late last year. The reviews seem to be about one paragraph long followed by links to amazon.com to purchase. I don't personally think these are anything more than commercial spam. Anyone other views? IrishGuy talk 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
OK. Now they are down to 37 links, all of which are interviews. I left the interview because someone above said those might be worth keeping. If anyone else thinks they are spam, feel free to remove them. All the double links have been removed. IrishGuy talk 22:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Several articles having the link to Fantasybookspot.com also have goldengryphon.com by 75.18.188.213 (added 24/10/2006). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm crossposting this here for comment per Eagle 101. The article in question seems to be mainly a vehicle for spam. RJASE1 Talk 05:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_screen_capture_software has been festering for 9 days and it needs to be closed by an impartial administrator. The spammers and socks seem to be popping out of the woodwork on this one. ( Requestion 06:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
There has been a limited amount of discussion about the appropriateness of linking every game to this website, but the results in my mind don't justify it. Take for example TnS ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) whose last 500+ edits have been to link mobygames through alphabetical lists of games. Many of the links lead to virtually contentless pages: diff leads to a cover shot and paragraph of advertising that was already on the article. The most extensive discussion so far has been Talk:MobyGames#Why_link_to_MobyGames.3F where other examples of weak links are given. Clearly no consensus has been reached, and yet the linking goes on. There even appears to be a specialized template for the addition of the links. Maybe I have just missed the boat on this one. Nposs 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Special:Linksearch now includes namespace. Hurrah! Guy ( Help!) 01:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Valarch has been pretty active in spamming eatsprouts.com recently [28] [29] [30] [31]
Is this where I take this? Montco 03:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I was page patrolling and ran across Michael Charles Smith. If we run across pages like this (and I've seen worse) that seem to be blatant political campaigning, do we treat them as spam? Or do we flag them as POV and move on? I wasn't around Wikipedia during the run-up to the last election so I'm not sure. I'm leaving the page alone for now. RJASE1 Talk 03:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Our link spamming friend from NewsMax.com is back. The User:Victoria2007 account was blocked so now he or she is using the User:Xyz456 account. It's the same general pattern but he or she is not directly referencing NewsMax.com in the text accompanying the links. And he or she is not screwing up the date. This spammer is definitely evolving (or being intelligently created, if you prefer). -- ElKevbo 04:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Davodavy is the newest incarnation of our NewsMax friends. Same MO, complete with "NewsMax.com reported..." inserted into articles and improper attribution of AP and Reuters stories to NewsMax. --
ElKevbo
17:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Spam Event Horizon Also the ref section in Fathers' rights is full. -- Hu12 02:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Posting a notice here per Eagle 101. Seeing and more pages added from nifty.com, a Japanese hosting service. Some links seem legitimate, but, since nearly all of the web pages are in kanji, not English, I can't tell which are good and which are spam. Someone with some knowledge of Japanese should probably take a look at the links to sort out the spam. RJASE1 Talk 04:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Wp:el#Foreign-language_links most likely cross spammed from other wikis, should be blacklisted if thats the case. ----- Hu12 10:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Adsense pub-3937876919487297
bulkoil.com
Would like a third opinion on the discussion Talk:List_of_vegetable_oils#Citations. Obvious Links normally to be avoided, however these are being used in citations. Problem is The small write ups on those pages seem to all be coppied/scrapped content from, 3rd parties including wikipedia. Site also contains extensive ad lists "for sale" which are classifieds. Guess back in july, it was self nominated as a feature article, and there was a heavy push to cite extensively, this site might have been easy, but a poor choice. A strong WP:OWN issue here.-- Hu12 09:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC) `
I don't know where to report this, so I guess I would ask here.
I appear to have found an advertising company that has been commissioned for writing articles related to Tim LaHaye's Left Behind Games. The user is "Modern branding solutions" (contributions here), and what appears to be their website indicated they are writing Wikipedia articles for their clients (see the "services" section.) An earlier, very unprofessional verison of Left Behind Games they wrote has already been deleted, after I tagged it, but the user is still here. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 19:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks like he's back. He noted on his talk page that he would get a new account, and it seems someone called " MBiddick" has been recreating the article (see warnings on his talk page.) Unsuprisingly, "MBiddick" is the name on the e-mail address for contacting Modern Branding Solutions. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 21:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The spam whitelist is being reviewed. Many old entries on the whitelist are bring removed. As the whitelist is an important part of spam fighting, I invite everyone here to help in the review: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/review. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 22:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Any one know the reason for the change in the spam logo? old one seemed crisper.-- Hu12 08:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Marked this an an Advert. Reads like a PR piece. The last revision by a single purpose account added a consideral ammount of POV, and spammy information. Someone want to take a look at the article Interactive Brokers, before its re writen back to stub status..LOL-- Hu12 20:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Revived from the archives, seems edits like this which Promotes commission rates, trading discounts, attractive interest rates and account minimums are inpropriate for inclusion and unencyclopedic. Happyzone ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may have a WP:COI with Interactive Brokers.-- Hu12 10:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Spammed by:
All owned by Deal Group Media, consist of exceedingly low content "reviews" with an emphasis on SEO and ad revenue. A.B. gives a nice overview of these issues on the talk page of the primary spammer (from last November). Is this a good blacklist candidate? Nposs 15:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Adsense pub-1564638458129247
writinghelp-central.com
Sfawcett (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Single spammer and Webmaster of the site writinghelp-central.com, also spams talk pages.
[38],
[39]--
Hu12
07:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's a twist: User:James McStub is making many many edits removing links from articles and leaving edit summaries that say "rm spam per WP:EL and WP:SPAM", but I checked a few and s/he seem to have removed several legitimate links and is leaving broken references in his/her wake. Thanks for looking into it. Katr67 03:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I put in a request at ANI, but I'll do it here too--can someone mass-revert the deletions the user made until the disputed links can be examined and removed in a *sane* manner? Thanks. Katr67 18:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
What are the WikiProject Spam people's thoughts on User:Dscannon's contribution history? Is there any reason we should keep any of his edits, considering this pattern of obvious abuse? -- SpamWatcher 03:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and had User:Qxz and User:AzaToth make us a little add to go in the User:Qxz/Ads template. I'm hoping that this will help spread some awareness about spam, and what we can do to stop it (this project and related guidelines). Hope everyone enjoys the irony. —— Eagle101 Need help? 06:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
There have recently been edits to WP:COI changing the spam wording from always avoid linking to your own site to avoid or exercise great caution when linking to your own site. Additional opinions would be appreciated. -- Milo H Minderbinder 12:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's another one for the team. Who is Michael Weidokal? This should give you a solid clue. How does Michael edit Wikipedia? With multiple accounts, of course. Time to delete ISA (International Strategic Analysis)? I think so. This spam alert has been brought to you by... The SpamWatcher 03:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's another firm that seems to think highly of itself. The article is Opinion Research Corporation. The major anonymous contributors to the article have a very suspicious edit history. I am especially concerned about this particular effort to erase a section that outlined a controversy. I think we should salt this article and let some independent Wikipedians take a new stab at it, if they feel so inclined. Then, someone might also want to take a look at how the Vinod Gupta article is being similarly embattled. I don't want to take sides on that one, because I am merely The SpamWatcher 03:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
A couple of different IPs are adding links to www.bookyards.com pages in articles on authors. The links go to a site that mirrors WP, but claims copyright for itself. One article that has the link is Homer, see [41]. --Akhilleus ( talk) 01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
65.93.190.99 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
69.159.116.16 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
69.159.116.92 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
70.55.255.165 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
69.159.117.234 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
70.48.99.10 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
69.159.116.185 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
Victorlamp (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
69.159.116.104 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
65.92.176.192 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
69.159.116.85 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
--
Hu12
06:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I trust that the article on Anderson Analytics should be deleted, based on its creator's edit history and the topics of interest of its most recent anonymous editor? Link spam, too! Another obvious violation brought to you by The SpamWatcher 16:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Wondering who Jon Marchant is, one might turn to Google. Looks like he works for a firm called BRMB. I wonder if that company has a Wikipedia article about itself? I wonder who is writing that article today? Take action, spam fighters. I am off to find more perpetrators. This is The SpamWatcher 16:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It's always interesting to see an anonymous user take such an active interest in 57% of the edits on an article. Even more interesting when they point out that their company is a competitor of larger, more reputable firms. Time to delete Compete, Inc, WikiProject Spam, and don't forget all those spammy "competitor" references, too. This has been another noble service of The SpamWatcher 16:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow. This one takes the cake. Check out the edit history of the article for Global Market Insite. It's dominated by single-purpose anon IP edits, plus a ton of edits from User:Irishlaw. About half of all of Irishlaw's edits relate to the GMI article that he created. His own User page states: "I work at GMI (Global Market Insite, Inc.) in the Internet marketing and web development department. I perform in-house SEO - SEM." Looks like he's expanding that "in-house" search engine marketing to "our house". Please take care of this, WikiProject Spam. Until next time, I am The SpamWatcher 17:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The article about Infosurv was created last year by a user named Infosurv. The article's references are nothing but press releases. I thought WP:CORP says a company needs to have multiple, independent sources to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia? Don't forget the helpful edits of this anon IP and this one. You have been "surved" by The SpamWatcher 17:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding me on this one. Reads like an advertising brochure. Created by a single-purpose account who likes uploading pictures of Jack Myers. Then, the article is nurtured by a user called MediaVillage who has been busily adding spam links to mediavillage.com all over popular Wikipedia articles. Oh, guess who owns MediaVillage? I'll give you a hint. His initials are J.M. and the surname rhymes with Spamyers. Chalk up another one for The SpamWatcher 17:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I have some real problems with the way Maritz Inc. was created ( by a single-purpose account), and has for the most part remained completely unsourced, unverified, and unchanged since that original creation. All kinds of fantastic, spammy claims are made ("known as one of the largest providers in the world of market research to the automotive industry", "an industry leader by taking advantage of the huge growth of rewards programs", and "well-known within the industry as a leader"). The article also claims that the company once boasted "nearly 7,000 employees", but says nothing of the current number. All of these claims need to be cited, and this doesn't count as an independent source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business brochure, and I am The SpamWatcher 01:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Seems that we have a single-purpose account junking up Wikipedia. This offends The SpamWatcher 16:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Why am I not the least bit surprised that the article NBRII was created by a User named NBRII? Come on, Wikipedians. We're being overrun with companies writing their own Wikipedia articles. Isn't that against the rules? Still undeterred, I am The SpamWatcher 02:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The article about Quantcast was set up by a user who spent 27 of his 30 edits on the Quantcast topic. When Calton came and put a speedy on the article, it was amazing to see how new single-purpose accounts appeared out of the proverbial woodwork to save the article from deletion. Not to mention, the most recent edits to the article come from our old friend, the Compete, Inc anon IP guy.
While we're at it, our busy contributor Reznor34 (the creator of the Quantcast travesty) has recently made edits to the article about Helmi Technologies. When we look into the history of that little article, we see a lot of activity by Jrisku and his anon IP friend. Could they possibly be serving any other purpose than to promote their company Helmi, thanks to Wikipedia's free server space and traffic pipeline?
We've been hoodwinked by these professional spammers. But now they've met The SpamWatcher 02:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed the pervasiveness of links to this site from airport articles. In many cases, I believe that the addition is a good faith edit as the page as a list of destinations served. However, I do not know how reliable this is. I remove the links from sites that I patrol but hesitate to knock this off on other pages. Its clearly commercial. Some of the editors could be spamming, but I have no evidence. There are likely reliable non-commercial sources, although they may be time-consuming or even impossible to located in the cases of some foreign airports. Any thoughts? Montco 00:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
pub-8182832343810773
http://www.randomdirectory.com
http://www.antique-information.info
http://www.architecture-information.info
24.58.21.225 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
12.96.182.148 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
--
Hu12
16:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The small town of Spilsby has a bicycle shop.
I started by AGF and being polite with this spammer, but it's clear that he (I always think of spammers as male) is uninterested in WP and is merely keen to spam his shop, making crude attempts to hide this by altering existing, legitimate links. I no longer bother to be polite with him. I know that there's a mechanism for automangling particular URLs, and ask that it is invoked for spilsbycycles.co.uk. If this isn't the place for such a request, please tell me where I should go. Thanks. -- Hoary 02:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. It needs to be blacklisted. You say: Someone here might propose it for the blacklist. Huh? I just did propose it for the blacklist, on 15 March 2007. Apparent effect of my proposal: Zero. If I could have made my proposal this in a more effective way/place, I'd like to know how/where. "A bit of an overkill"? Well, I think this Spilsby Cycles twit is "overkilling" by attempting nine times to spam his silly shop. No, actually ten times; because, predictably, he did it again:
How many more times may he attempt to spam before blocking his domain is no longer "overkill"? Another ten times? Twenty?
Or should I "assume good faith", thinking that the use of yet another IP to simultaneously insert a link to a bicycle store and delete a worthwhile link was just the ignorant mistake of some well-intentioned person who honestly believes that a bicycle shop is of encyclopedic significance? -- Hoary 03:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
SORRY
hi, i just want to let you know that i am sorry for the edits i have made to the "spilsby" town page on wikipedia. i kept putting the link to that cycles shop on there, then when i checked back a few days later etc it had vanished. i only kept putting it back on because i thought i must have entered it wrongly. i did'nt know that there were messages for me about it, i have only just clicked on this 'discussions page' and did not know you could talk to other users.
from now on all of my edits will be for the greater good, i have turned over a new leaf, and don't want to upset anyone. i have added a picture i took of the bus stop being built in the town, and a few other links (non-commercial) about the town etc.
i am not up on all this technical stuff, and did'nt mean to make you mad.
many thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:C.thompson
I am having some difficulties with User:Shanlung who persists in adding links to his personal pet page to the Parrot article. I've reverted him twice and tried to explain on the talk page why the link does not belong but to no avail. (I also notice he's been trying to put this link on the African Grey Parrot page as well). Can I keep reverting if its spam? I don't really like to but it really isn't an encyclopaedic link. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
As this person has sadly discovered, WP has ways of automatically preventing the creation by anyone of any link to a domain.
This measure isn't one that is or should be taken lightly. But it's taken, all right. Who takes it? Where does one apply for it to be taken? I want to apply, I don't know how to apply, I've looked for but not found this information, and I'm surprised not to see it mentioned in the project page. -- Hoary 05:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
cystinuria.org
International Cystinuria Foundation
associated with
http://www.randominc.net/
Banannafish (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Randominc (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
--
Hu12
07:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Didn't catch this immediatly. No spam intended here... a handful of appropriatly placed links to a 501(c)3 nonprofit is not what i consider to be spam.
Note: Lately there are link-additions to The European Library from people (e.g. User:Fleurstigter; sent me an email from an address at kb.nl) and IP addresses (e.g. User:194.171.184.4) of the "Koninklijke Bibliotheek" ( Dutch Royal Library). The Koninklijke Bibliotheek is one of the participants in the project. I have notified the acconts that they have a conflict of interest, and have removed links to this site added by people in this range. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Why can't I refer to resources that are stored in Europe's national libraries? How can you call that spam?
Fleurstigter
11:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
What better place than a library (most def. a gateway to many national libraries!!!) to find quality resources. If this is not allowed you should also ban comparable (public + commercial) sites.
Why does it matter who points users of wikipedia to these high-quality library resources? We are talking here about LIBRARIES: isn't great that libraries and wikipedia finally find each other?
Furthermore, I think it's unacceptable that one person logs my doings by the second, and delete my contributions in the 2nd second - not even give others a moment to take a look at it, place a comment, etc.. Fleurstigter 17:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments. You may like to take a look at this Village Pump post [ [42]] Have a nice afternoon, Fleurstigter 16:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Adsense pub-6543611023224625
trainweb.org
Noroton (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Seems several topics on this have arrisen
User_talk:Noroton#Trainweb.org,
User_talk:KyraVixen#Don.27t_you_dare and
Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Adding_links_to_organizations_to_articles_about_related_things, worth keeping an eye on--
Hu12
22:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
(copy from WT:EL)
Hu12, and NE12, the two of you have shown yourselves to be more interested in conspiring and confronting rather than in coming to consensus. Instead, try to work with editors you have disagreements with.
All of you: Review the discussion at User_talk:KyraVixen#Don.27t_you_dare, in which you'll see an example of two parties coming to a reasonable agreement through consensus. Noroton 23:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
(proceed from discussion on WT:EL
Noroton, thank you for your response. I have indeed asked you to avoid canvassing. I am sorry, I am not sure the word canvassing is correct, I meant the mass addition of links (either internal or external) to articles that are not directly linked to the subject, my excuses if I did not make myself clear. Still, regarding these edits, you have been asked to read WP:SPAM (e.g. in the warning that I have provided you). The first paragraph of WP:SPAM states:
"There are four types of wikispam: advertisements masquerading as articles, wide-scale external link spamming, bandspam (tangential references instead of disambiguation which promote some entity) and "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian" spamming or, " canvassing" (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting"). Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities.".
Your first mass-addition of these links fall under "wide-scale external link spamming", in your last additions you again add the external link, this time in a tangential reference and an internal link, again spamming (under the wikipedia definition) them across the articles. I also asked you to add content to the article, and gave you examples of data that could be added. I don't see why this piece of information is more important than the contents I suggested to you. Commuters use the station day in day out. They must see the pamphlet on the station wall. For me the information you added means nothing, there are many other things that I might want to know about the station, but which have not been added.
So your external links were, once again, removed because you were spamming them. I am sorry if my terminology confused you but I hoped/expected that my earlier explanation was clear enough. You reacted quite fierce on my first removals of these external links, and I have, IMHO, kept my patience in explaining to you what I meant. Also your initial reaction on these latest removals ("Don't you dare") is again angry. Please understand that apparently these edits don't get understood (also seen two other editors show their concern), and may need a good explanation or discussion before they are performed, or maybe they should not be performed. Hope this explains. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 00:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
As citations, it's not so much an addition of spam links but an addition of the same information to many pages, where it is better presented on Metro-North Railroad. This is the same basic issue as with the external links. -- NE2 00:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that we all indent with a ":" at the front of each paragraph and a "*" at the start of each comment. It's going to be difficult enough responding to three or more different people, and it makes it much easier to follow individual threads. Indent one more time with an extra ":" when you're responding to an already indented paragraph.
Taking your points in the order you made them:
I removed several links from this article that are online cycle sellers, there doesn't appear to be any encyclopedic reason for having them. It's clear (to me anyway) that these links have been added in order to allow people to buy the bike online - one of the links even says "they ship all over the place".
The links were quickly replaced by the creator of the article, who claimed they should stay "as there are no wikipedia articles about the companies". Well, they're cycle sellers, so I doubt most/all of them are even notable enough for their own article. That's not a reason to keep linkspam.
Can anyone with a better knowledge of linkspam rules take a look at this article? Even though it's well-written I think it's being used as a sly sales device for these bikes. Crazysuit 05:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I've recently become involved with this project and in my spare time I've looked at a number of articles either on the to-do list or tagged with Clean-Up-Spam. Some of the links are clearly spam - however some are just either just inappropiate or just not relevant. E.g. The last article I looked at ( Lytham St Annes) the only spam was links to a few domestic photo sites showing a user pictures on a holiday there. While these type of links are not-relevant they are not (what I would call Spam). On this talk page all the items under discussion are about spam where as on the to-do list there appears to be a 50/50 split between spam and just cleaning up the external links. Is the scope of this project to solely clean up spam links - or to generally tidy up external links? -- Rehnn83 Talk 10:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Another SEO contest to watch for. found its first article appearance on wikipedia, Shopautodotca seocontest, of course has been salted. The criteria is to place 1st in Google / MSN / Yahoo for the term "shopautodotca seocontest" and have a link back to shopauto.ca with keywords used cars, used car classifieds targeted. So be prepared for auto spam.-- Hu12 05:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Adsense pub-4071863667757591
163.244.63.120 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
163.244.62.121 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
163.244.63.122 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
163.244.62.123 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
83.71.10.17 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
87.192.16.135 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
172.178.95.230 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log)
Note this is tricky, Spam added by 163.244.62.123
@ 10:18, 21 March 2007 then within a minute 163.244.62.121 posted
@ 10:19, 21 March 2007, either its meatpuppetry of or a very clever spammer.--
Hu12
10:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Adsense pub-8877273450423438
These are all
aggregated results pages, which are
Links normally to be avoided--
Hu12
15:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Marked this an an Advert. Reads like a PR piece. The last revision by a single purpose account added a consideral ammount of POV, and spammy information. Someone want to take a look at the article Interactive Brokers, before its re writen back to stub status..LOL-- Hu12 20:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Revived from the archives, seems edits like this which Promotes commission rates, trading discounts, attractive interest rates and account minimums are inpropriate for inclusion and unencyclopedic. Happyzone ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may have a WP:COI with Interactive Brokers.-- Hu12 10:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted the edits made by Jph4239 as they were all adding links to content at thepalestra.com. Can someone please double-check that I've done the right thing and have properly judged those links to be link spam? Thanks! -- ElKevbo 21:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
ya'll might want to give User:The_Transhumanist/Virtual_classroom#Yuser.2C_on_fighting_linkspam a once over before it goes live later today. please give it a few minutes. UPDATE: ITS NOW LIVE, go forth and edit! JoeSmack Talk 22:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Adsense pub-4719146971986307
Interesting scheme:
.pressarchive.net is apparently some kind of "library" of articles, except that every pressarchive link on WP is a link-through to an article on
http://www.moviehole.net/. The pressarchive frame remains active and a pop-up ad is loaded in the background. The interviews are rather low quality and perhaps not even worth linking in most instances. Here is the tricky part: over 240 links have been slowly inserted by single-purpose contributors who add around 10 links to the site - and nothing else. "Link added to interview" is all that is found in the edit summary. List of spammers so far:
Frankly, there is no need to link to this site - ever. It just links through to other sources (well, only moviehole, as far as I can tell) and adds some advertising. This seems like a good candidate for the blacklist. At the same time, there is the problem of the linked article - which in all cases I checked was an interview. All the ones I checked were really low quality, but I'm not sure how to go about replacing all 240+ links at the moment. Nposs 03:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
If anyone can suggest a course of action, I'll gladly get to work. Frankly, the extent of the spam is great, I have no idea where to begin. Nposs 02:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Its nothing more than Iframes site, it has no other purpose thant to capture traffic from moviehole.net's content. Not sure why they agreed, The webpage below is displayed from Moviehole.net, with their permission. Moviehole.net is not affiliated with PressArchive.net. but this essentionaly a no content site and should by all means be removed, or replaced with the correct moviehole.net url. This is a clear violation under #9 " aggregated results pages." in Links normally to be avoided -- Hu12 01:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Its not as straight forward as it seems, your handling it the right way. my reason for suggesting the BL, is two fold. One because its obviously unmanageable spam, and second each instance will need replacement or removal in order to edit, which can be done by the hundereds of regular editors who frequent those afflicted articles, rather than by one individual. It certainly should be a bot task if, if your not comfortable w/blacklisting it. It should be added to Shadowbot's list, however I don't know of a bot that can remove existing links.-- Hu12 03:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I have recently noted users warn spammers and include links to the site that the user is spamming. They say that because they add spam to the domain IE spam.foo.com that kills the link it does not it still helps the spammer instead inclose the site's link in <nowiki></nowiki> tags. Betacommand ( talk • contribs • Bot) 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Wait a minute; let me get this straight... Betacommand left a {{ uw-spam2}} warning on Requestion's talk page because Requestion included the link in a spam warning on the spammer's talk page?? Does anyone else have a major problem with this? -- Satori Son 20:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the debate of whether we should be including active links to spam sites in talk page warnings is a good discussion, but I want to make one point perfectly clear: the use of a stock warning template in an attempt to force an experienced editor to conform to your personal editing preference is totally and completely unacceptable. That is not what the warning templates were designed for. Don't template the regulars. And the use of the {{ uw-spam1}} warning on an obviously active and informed member of WikiProject Spam is particularly distasteful, to say the least. -- Satori Son 13:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Because of a possible conflict of interest, I would welcome someone else taking a look at Special:Contributions/207.96.193.174. For those (most) who do not know, "imposition" is a generic term for something professional printers do, and also the name of a specific software product which does it from Ulti mate Technologies. Notinasnaid 20:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it. Notinasnaid 20:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It appears to no longer allow searching by namespace and I can no longer specify a search as *website.com Note the explicit lack of a dot/period between the * and the letter. It rejects these as "Wildcards may appear only at the start of the hostname." which appears to be counter-intuitive to *blah.com not having the wildcard at the start. I used this long ago to find websites that were *-some-words.tld, but I can no longer do that now. Anyone else notice this behavior or have an explanation for it? Kevin_b_er 03:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
If no-one has any objections I would like to tidy up the To do list. I've noticed that there are a number of articles/comments that date to last year. Reviewing these articles (dated 06) the link spam problem seems to have been removed/eradicated. If no-one objects I would like to review each item on the to-do list and where appropiate remove the respective comments. I'd also like to jiggle the items on the list. If I have a free moment I'll pick an article tagged with Clean-Up Spam and review it. I'd like to add a section for tagged articles that have been reviewed and ammended (and then untagged). Ideally I'd date stamp and article and then after a week or so remove the article from the list. Just my thoughts/plan. If anyone feels I'm stepping on their toes or generally going about it the wrong way, please let me know. -- Rehnn83 Talk 14:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like it might be usefull to y'all. Sorry for the antispam spam. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 14:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm very tied up off-Wikipedia and I am unable to follow up on this. Someone with good sleuthing skills and a suspicious nature yet also possessing a strong sense of AGF (a self-contradiction?) may want to look into this meta request. See my very brief response there at:
I had started to look into this several days ago but had to drop it. I got just far enough along for my instincts to tell me there was something odd going on -- possibly a Joe job. -- A. B. (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
There are 88 of these links spammed all over articles. IrishGuy talk 00:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that [133] have added their links to over 60 articles. I'd remove them myself but I don't know if people here use an automated system to do that? Crazysuit 02:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to ask about the links for London's Transport Museum that appear in a lot of articles relating to the London Underground, nearly every article on that topic has several external links to the site. The worst is probably Leslie Green which has nearly 40 external links.
I have to say - LTM is an excellent site and contains thousands of photos of great encyclopedic value which aren't available anywhere else, but I think the practice of including several links in each article is a but much. Crazysuit 02:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The actual points made in the project page are seldom much of a problem, but the way the page is written it:
This appears to be a suggestion not to engage in discussions. If you think someone is spamming and you revert the edits, you should be able to discuss the matter on the merits. It might actually turn out that you're wrong. If you approach the matter in a way that suggests even discussion is some kind of surrender to the other party's "luring" of you, you're not likely to be open-minded. If you are encouraged to ignore the "assume good faith" injunction, you're not likely to be open-minded. I was going to suggest that something be added to this sentence to rectify its insinuations, but a better alternative would be to delete the sentence: It's subject is what attitude you should take, not what you should do or know, and it encourages a bad attitude. I don't understand what use this sentence is, so I propose deleting it.
Incidentally, after encouraging "spam fighters" to avoid discussions, we get this at #14 in the list of "how to identify spammers":
So it's preferable for "spam fighters" to avoid discussion, but a sign of a spammer if that editor avoids discussion. Do I detect the whiff of a double standard here?
I think the following or something like it should be added somewhere near the top of the article:
With the serious problems identified above, these quotes, taken together, give an overall bellicose tone to the project page and encourage bellicosity in the "spam fighting brigade". Taken one by one, there is no problem, but the article is meant to be read as a whole, and when editors read the article as a whole, it has the effect of encouraging closed minds and abrupt editing, even rudeness. Again, I myself would agree with much of what is said in these quotes, but I object to the overall tone when you take them together (boldface has been added to particular parts of quotes for the sake of clarity; occasionally in parentheses I've added other points):
I've assumed here that the writers of the project page don't really want to ignore argument, be closed-minded and act in a bellicose manner. But the way the page is written clearly encourages that behavior. I suggest toning down the language of all or nearly all of the phrases quoted in the second part and making the change I suggest in the first part. Noroton 01:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
While I strongly disagree with Noroton's hyperbolic assertion that the text of our Project page is a "scandal", the page is probably overdue for minor improvements and possible softening of some of the tone. I have begun making some hopefully uncontroversial updates. Obviously, if any Project member strongly objects to any changes I make, please revert and start a new section here to discuss. Thanks, Satori Son 15:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Response to A.B. There's a pattern of rudeness here, and for the purposes of an example, I'm going to cite some of my experiences with this crowd. Every time Requestion puts his fingers to his keyboard he makes my case (I swear, he's not a sock puppet of mine). And he does it perfectly in accordance with the project page. And none of you call him on it. To me, that indicates a problem, but you don't hve to believe that to simply believe the project page needs editing. You list Hu12 as one of your responsible parties. Well, not in my experience. I wasn't terribly courteous with him either (I think I was just barely civil) and that wasn't right on my part, but I had every reason to feel abused, given the treatment I was getting. From his talk page (under "Learn some mannters" (sic):
(emphasis added in boldface)
As a matter of right as a Wikipedian, I get to have an assumption of good faith (even if I make a mistake) unless there's some good reason to doubt it. Various people associated with this Web page have stated or implied that because I added a lot of links to some pages that (a) I'm something called a "convicted spammer"; (b) I'm "doing business"; or (c) that I even have some connection with the Web site I linked to (DirkBeetstra questioned that on my talk page, although overall I've been able to work with him). It's not worth addressing (a) here or Requestion's other insults, but look at Hu12's conduct: He reverts without giving me any chance to talk the matter over with him, and when I object to his behavior, and argue (on KyraVixen's talk page) that I have good Wikipedian reasons for my edits, his only (sneering) response is that I might be "doing business." As if adding links to a state ombudsman agency is in some way a moneymaking enterprise for me. As if I never showed any interest in Connecticut articles. As if I showed any pattern at all of doing anything improper other than wanting to help readers in my area by pointing people interested in the local train station to the state ombudsman agency with responsibility for it. And as if I didn't have reasons for doing that, damn good ones in my opinion. For that — for doing what I think is helpful and right, mind you — I'm insulted.
And when I look at the project page, I see a possible reason why.
I shouldn't have to explain all this. I shouldn't have to assert that my standing is at least as good as any of yours. And neither I nor anyone else should have to be treated that way. You don't have a license to ignore WP:CIV and WP:AGF. Because you've taken on a certain task in Wikipedia, it doesn't exempt you from Wikipedia rules. Noroton 17:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Virtual classroom: On fighting spam
Under "Make sure it's spam before you remove it" he writes:
Interesting ideas. Noroton 19:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, we are are arguing about if there is or if there isn't a problem... Lets just move on a bit. I've noticed people (myself included) treat spammers with a little less then the utmost respect. I think it's important that we reinforce the public-relations side of this equation. I think it's important to keep the image of the project spic-and-span.
On a personal note, I also think it's important to treat everyone, including the lowest vandal, with respect. It's even more important when they don't deserve it. Then again, I'm guilty of not living up to my own ideals on occasion.
So what do we do moving forward? I think we are extremely good at the investigation, but while the community relations side is good in most regards there is some room for improvement. Lets build a new section on the project page about how to interact with "The Spammer" with some positive recommendations. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 22:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyone care to comment in this discussion? I was attempting to reduce the large number of links at the page, including an entire section of blogs (most of which had Google ads). OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous editor using multiple IP addresses has been busily adding links to American-universities.info and US News & World Report to American college and university articles. For example, he or she edited the University of Florida article from 69.105.111.141, Louisiana State University from 69.105.30.29, and the University of Tennessee from 69.105.96.88. The USN&WR link isn't bad but I don't see any value in the other link, particularly when added at the same time as the USN&WR link. Can anyone else help me figure out what's going on? -- ElKevbo 13:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I really need a second opinion over at the Consumers Union page. Impa ( talk · contribs) continues to add links to their organization’s website, the International Myopia Prevention Association. In addition to WP:EL and WP:COI, the edits also violate WP:NPOV.
I have tried to be welcoming and courteous, and to direct the editor to relevant policy, but the link spamming still continues. Please read the exchange at Talk:Consumers Union. Just requesting a double-check by someone to confirm my assessment of the link, and, if you agree, a little back-up watching the article. Thanks, Satori Son 13:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Caterhamlink keeps adding linkspam to promote his own business directory http://www.thecaterhamlink.com. The only edits he has made to articles involve adding linkspam, and he also appears to be adding the same linkspam with the IP 81.86.73.193.
He claims his business directory should be added because "our website carrys for free information about events and charities", and "We are trying to spread the word to boost attendance at local fundraising events" which is an admission that he's merely using Wikipedia for promotion. That would be bad enough, but it's a lie. His website contains the following statements:
The front page even has "Business Directory" banner. Even Caterhamlink's own username is promoting his business.
He also claims that "we carry only a dozen or so business adverts to pay for the site", except thecaterhamlink.com is part of http://www.localarealink.com/, which states any affiliated websites (ie thecaterhamlink.com) will "earn a realistic and sustainable income generated from paying advertisers... a great business opportunity with a realistic and achievable income potential... creating an income for you that will be consistent and long lasting... total 1st year's income = £20,250... with the potential to earn a serious income...", etc.
I think that proves that this definitely isn't just some non-profit community website for charity events. Two other people have warned him about adding these links, but he continued, so I added subst:uw-spam3 to his talk page and explained why. He has now returned and is still adding the link. I've now added subst:uw-spam4, and I'm letting the spam fighters here know, if you can add this to your watchlist because I'm not on Wikipedia much to keep checking.
(He was included on User:Veinor/Link count/February 23, 2007 for adding 10 links). 172.188.70.108 18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
--
I am a new user and enjoy using Wikpedia despite my experience in trying to add my website as a link. But in my travels around the site I come across websites like mine linking to their town which should fall foul of the same rules I did and why I thought it was OK to link to my site. I don't feel comfortable deleting their links and giving warnings as I don't think it's my place to do so, so my question is how/where do you report spam links like this? Example - town of Sanderstead has two business directories in it's links. Thanks Caterhamlink 13:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
...I can't figure this out. Please see the contributions of these two editors (probably the same person):
Elaborate way to advertise skapsis.blogspot.com? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deli nk ( talk • contribs) 13:49, March 26, 2007
Yes re-added yet again, Skapsis needs a closer look. WP:WINAD WP:NEO-- Hu12 03:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Links added:
Accounts known to have added either or both of these links:
Affected articles (English Wikipedia only):
-- A. B. (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Extensive spamming last year of a wide range of telecom and other articles not stopped by blocks and warnings:
Domains:
Accounts adding these links:
Back again this month with a new IP after laying low for 3 months.
-- A. B. (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
These links were spammed across many U.K. articles in 2006. In January, we got heartfelt pledges not to add these links anymore without first getting permission on article talk pages:
I guess our friend forgot; see:
-- A. B. (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Using a search from Bishonen's user page, I happened across a link to bookrags.com. This site is linked over 500 times. I don't have much time to look further into this, but the pages I've seen so far are primarily copies from wikipedia articles (including the article on which the link resides), other encyclopedias, or subscriber-only content (examples: [135] [136]). Additionally, there is a sufficient level of advertising to raise suspicions. I don't have much time to spare for any sort of thorough investigation, but if someone is sitting around with spare time on their hands, this might warrant a closer look. ScottW 23:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
DWWW, 95.5 Star FM, RW 95.1, DZRL 540, DYRL 540, DZXQ and 92.7 Eazy FM. Are any of these real, or notable?-- Hu12 00:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)