Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Internet Brands

If you take a look at the Internet Brands article it looks like it's been subject to some pretty heavy "PR management" by the company, it's a blatant advertisement (it's the company that bought out the vBulletin forum software). I don't know how to best go about checking the IPs editing, and being an internet company they have probably been smart enough to make usernames anyway for editing (maybe even editing other articles first to make it look legit?) which only admins could check. Really think this should be investigated so thought I should report it, it's not a hugely major company like some of the companies I've read that have been caught editing their own Wikipedia pages, but I still don't think they should just get away with it even if they have made accounts to hide who is making the changes. --94.193.135.203 (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (random lurker)


 * You're on to something here. I'd be interested to know what the relationship is between and, who appear to be tag-teaming to keep a POV tag off the page, and what the relationship is between those two and Internet Brands, given the dozens of articles about Internet Brands' websites the two have created. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 12:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also . These are pretty damning (notice that little sidebar on the right). I'll trawl through their website to compile a list of sites and otherwise investigate this spam tomorrow. I smell blacklist fodder. Let me know if you delete anything between now and then. MER-C 13:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This comment seems to imply there is a policy against a company linking to wikipedia page(s) about themselves?   LuvWikis (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I deleted the following as A7:




 * There are lots of others, but they have assertions of notability in one way or another. That's not to say that they wouldn't better be dealt with as a paragraph in the Internet Brands article or even a List of Internet Brands websites. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 13:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, all of the pages above had notability explanations. Can we have due process here?    LuvWikis (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've put up a DB-SPAM -blatant advertising on the rest, as the template says they need a complete rewrite from neutral parties (if they deserve to be here at all) since this has been going back all the way back to 2006(!!!) undetected by anyone, looking at the contributions... You admins really need to create some kind of centralised astroturfing alert system, like with vandal stuff... Just wow... :/ Seriously if this one is this bad I can only imagine how many other stuff like this is getting past the radar because they are in niche areas... --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Have any of the above-mentioned accounts been notified of this discussion? It is mandatory to do so. 69.211.10.208 (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. I think we can assume the news will get around the others :) EyeSerene talk 19:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't be surprised if they are either a) the same person b) all based in the same office or c) some outsourced "guerilla marketing" black hat SEO outfit --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't think of a single good reason not to banninate the lot of them as spammers. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Neither can I; linking to their self-written articles from their website is the very definition of astroturfing. However, given the numbers and the likelihood that more will appear, I think blacklisting and/or filtering might be a useful additional step. EyeSerene talk 19:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Before i saw this, I had declined a speedy deletion on the main article, as I do not thinks it meets the criterion, and is rewritable by normal editing, and even after seeing this, I think a speedy unjustified. Whether the particular users should be banned from editing it is another matter, and I'd support doing that, and semi-protecting the article to deal with probable continuation. Deletion is a very blunt tool to deal with NPOV.  I have also declined a speedy on Professional Pilots Rumor Network for the same reason--whether it is notable enough for a separate article is,again, another matter.  Others may judge differently, but AfD is available. I'm going back now to the main article to do some rewriting.   DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Investigating (results posted on WT:WPSPAM to avoid clogging up this noticeboard). MER-C 06:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Luvwikis, you need to answer ALL of the following questions.


 * 1) Why are ALL of your edits related to Internet Brands?
 * 2) Explain these entries in your move log.
 * 3) Do you work for Internet Brands or are a contractor thereof?
 * 4) Do you know CellarDoor2001?
 * 5) Why have the links to Wikipedia from internetbrands.com disappeared between yesterday and today?
 * 6) Is an online encyclopedia a vehicle to be used for the promotion of Internet Brands?

Until then, I believe you are abusing Wikipedia for the promotion of Internet Brands, therefore these sites need to be permanently blacklisted and that you be banned with extreme prejudice. (Hey, look, I have a ifreelance.com link on my userpage! Yay!) MER-C 06:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are going to do anything, it would need to be done soon... the company has now started the whitewash operation, mass-removing the db-spam templates from articles using two of their accounts (probably two SEO/PR people assigned to it since there seems no reason to use more than 1 account at this point), and thanking User:DGG for their support in doing the same, and deleting discussion of the company's behavior from talk pages:  --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added them back, the company's rampaging around removing the templates actually worked and disrupted the deletion of many of them, some were taken care f but not the ones they got to first:
 * Autodata Solutions
 * CarsDirect
 * CorvetteForum
 * Internet Brands
 * EPodunk
 * WAHM (magazine)
 * Apartment Ratings
 * Wikitravel
 * Professional Pilots Rumour Network
 * FlyerTalk‎
 * DoItYourself.com
 * FitDay
 * DVD Talk (I missed this too, the using multiple accounts is actually quite a smart move it's harder to keep track)
 * As per db-spam, advertising content that would need a complete rewrite to be NPOV, the edits done by this outfit should be gone and start from unbiased if they are worth having it all they would need a fresh start without the taint of this manipulation (going back as far as 2006 for some articles, they seem to have succeeded at keeping this off the radar for over 4 years... I really think what I said before needs to be done that you need to set up some kind of centralised anti-astroturfing warning system like with vandals, if these have escaped how many other companies are getting away with this?) --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, we have a problem here. The list of sites owned by this spamhaus includes:

... of which there are thousands of links to this site (plus, I believe, an interwiki thing). There are also articles on various websites which were created by good faith editors, often before said sites were acquired by Internet Brands, whose links need whitelisting when we blacklist. MER-C 07:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User subpages nominated for deletion at Miscellany for deletion/Internet Brands. MER-C 07:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess these are the "official versions" that the articles are meant to be aggressively kept to with their reversions over the years (just look at the contributions and the "LuvWikis" one)--Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess these are the "official versions" that the articles are meant to be aggressively kept to with their reversions over the years (just look at the contributions and the "LuvWikis" one)--Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess these are the "official versions" that the articles are meant to be aggressively kept to with their reversions over the years (just look at the contributions and the "LuvWikis" one)--Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess these are the "official versions" that the articles are meant to be aggressively kept to with their reversions over the years (just look at the contributions and the "LuvWikis" one)--Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess these are the "official versions" that the articles are meant to be aggressively kept to with their reversions over the years (just look at the contributions and the "LuvWikis" one)--Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess these are the "official versions" that the articles are meant to be aggressively kept to with their reversions over the years (just look at the contributions and the "LuvWikis" one)--Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess these are the "official versions" that the articles are meant to be aggressively kept to with their reversions over the years (just look at the contributions and the "LuvWikis" one)--Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess these are the "official versions" that the articles are meant to be aggressively kept to with their reversions over the years (just look at the contributions and the "LuvWikis" one)--Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess these are the "official versions" that the articles are meant to be aggressively kept to with their reversions over the years (just look at the contributions and the "LuvWikis" one)--Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess these are the "official versions" that the articles are meant to be aggressively kept to with their reversions over the years (just look at the contributions and the "LuvWikis" one)--Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess these are the "official versions" that the articles are meant to be aggressively kept to with their reversions over the years (just look at the contributions and the "LuvWikis" one)--Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess these are the "official versions" that the articles are meant to be aggressively kept to with their reversions over the years (just look at the contributions and the "LuvWikis" one)--Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess these are the "official versions" that the articles are meant to be aggressively kept to with their reversions over the years (just look at the contributions and the "LuvWikis" one)--Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess these are the "official versions" that the articles are meant to be aggressively kept to with their reversions over the years (just look at the contributions and the "LuvWikis" one)--Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess these are the "official versions" that the articles are meant to be aggressively kept to with their reversions over the years (just look at the contributions and the "LuvWikis" one)--Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess these are the "official versions" that the articles are meant to be aggressively kept to with their reversions over the years (just look at the contributions and the "LuvWikis" one)--Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess these are the "official versions" that the articles are meant to be aggressively kept to with their reversions over the years (just look at the contributions and the "LuvWikis" one)--Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess these are the "official versions" that the articles are meant to be aggressively kept to with their reversions over the years (just look at the contributions and the "LuvWikis" one)--Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess these are the "official versions" that the articles are meant to be aggressively kept to with their reversions over the years (just look at the contributions and the "LuvWikis" one)--Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess these are the "official versions" that the articles are meant to be aggressively kept to with their reversions over the years (just look at the contributions and the "LuvWikis" one)--Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Kittins, much as I admire your zeal, you are added back speedy tags that I removed. I do not tolerate spam, far from it, but when I see spam on a article about something notable I rewrite it. When iI see a spammy link, I remove it. I have been doing this for years, for dozens of spammers just like this. I leave it to others to judge if the articles are still too spammy to stand after I have worked on them, but your replacement of tags is interfering with my attempts at cleaning up this mess. It is not permitted to replace speedy tags that have been removed in good faith by an editor not the author of the article. Please take them individually to afd if you disagree with me, but do not continue undoing my work If the subjects are notable, a descriptive article is not spam. MER-C, I'm going to oppose the Mfds, beca=use I know I can rewrite the articles. If you like, anyone is free to block the spammer (I might do it myself except I consider myself involved at this point), I have not the slightest objection, but usable content is usable content.  DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK sorry, I just really don't think they should get away with this, I've used PROD that would be better right? I think they need to be redone from afresh without any of the taint they have put in, I can't believe you've let them get away with this for over 4 years and I really really think if Wikipedia is going to start defending themselves against this kind of astroturfing that you need to show that this kind of behaviour will actually make things worse - what you are saying is making them happy look at your talk page, if they win this will only go on, and other companies will take heart knowing that Wikipedia is a safe place to manipulate. --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The one great thing about Wikipedia is that it at least tries to be a last bastion on the internet free from advertisements and PR people... this is a serious threat and should be taken seriously, you are up against multi-million dollar businesses who can afford to employ people to do nothing but edit sites like Wikipedia to enforce their party line. --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * WP is not a safe place to manipulate if people are watching. What we need to do is watch better. I have despammed articles from all sorts of major businesses and organizations, and explained it clearly enough that they have not returned--or I have blocked them when they did try to return.  No, Prod would not work, because anyone can remove the tag if they wish to challenge the deletion, and I am doing just that; your recourse if you still think they should be deleted is afd, but I will certainly defend my work there. If others judge it is not good work, the articles will be deleted, though I cannot remember the last time it has happened to an article I rewrote in a case like this, except when the spammer insisted on re-adding the bad content.   I have not let them get away with it for 4 years. Had my attention been called to it, as you have now done, i would have dealt with them,but I do not take responsibility for checking personally every article in Wikipedia, though I do take responsibility for fixing problems I notice.  The project as a whole failed to deal with them, because the articles did not attract attention because the subjects of them are, after all, easily recognized as  notable and the spammer was competent enough to write them in a way that appeared to follow our conventions. Because they did that, and because they added good references from reliable independent sources, iI do not consider it necessary to delete and rewrite them, nor do our policies require it. That is one way of handling if nobody is prepared to rewrite them, of course, but I am.  I am not concerned with punishing people, I am concerned with preventing spam from staying in Wikipedia. If further spam needs to be prevented, the users can be blocked and if necessary the articles all semi-protected. We will sometimes optionally delete versions to remove BLP violations and copyvio and libel and other vandalism, but not merely spammy edits.  I help the deserving and the undeserving alike, if the net result will improve the content of Wikipedia.  It's 4 AM here. I should be doing other things than this, I had already done enough spam removal for one day, but I am going to keep going till I remove at least the spam you inadvertently reinserted.    DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but it seems that LuvWikis and CellarDoor2001 should be banned from editing Internet Brands articles, for the obvious COI and astroturfing. Whether the articles can stand on their own is an entirely separate question.  Thanks for the good de-spamming work DGG, and thanks also to Kittins for bringing this to everyone's attention. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree we need to do something about these 3 (only 3?) editors. SPI perhaps, although if they are different editors that doesn't mean they aren't doing paid PR work. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested removal of Wikitravel from the interwiki map here. MER-C 09:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Articles_for_deletion/CarsDirect --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * - google "internet+brands"+wikipedia, over TWELVE THOUSAND results
 * facebook.com/pages/Internet-Brands/107826215912479 - Their page uses Wikipedia to describe themselves (as their editors basically own the article it's "safe").
 * Same here, "Internet Brands on Wikipedia - Learn the behind-the-scenes history about how many of INET's vibrant community websites were founded."
 * RE: Mer-C's comment near the start of this discussion saying "Also . These are pretty damning (notice that little sidebar on the right). I'll trawl through their website to compile a list of sites and otherwise investigate this spam tomorrow. I smell blacklist fodder", well, they have quickly hidden those links now on their sites, no doubt due to these events attempting to cover it up, I retrieved the copies for a couple of the ones they haven't tried to hide the evidence for yet from Google cache (unfortunately it updates fairly regularly so doesn't have them all, but look at them and you will get the idea):
 * internetbrands.png
 * internetbrandshealth.png
 * internetbrandshome.png
 * internetbrandsshopping.png
 * internetbrandstravel.png
 * At the bottom of the Facebook page and on the Related tab (next to the Wikipedia tab) there's a guy posting bragging about how they bought another website, "Gordon Bengston" which has a link to their website, which says it all really: " Gordon Bengston & Internet Marketing --  Brute Force SEO eMarketing Tips and Trends  ", facebook groups include "Profit Optimization Group", "specializing in Website Design and Development, Search Engine Marketing, PPC, and Email Marketing. YOUR customers are now searching for you on Google, you need to be there!" and "E-Marketing Systems - Getting Your Business a Presence on the Internet".. the Wall seems to be same content copied over from twitter.com/GordonBengston
 * apparently pyramid schemes are also ran by these people, check out the abhorrent "testimonials" from professional spammers...
 * Another page on the guy's site talks about "OWNING google results"...
 * And another link from the Facebook page says "Internet Brands - Freelance Writer" ... Guess I found their team and explains why it's so amateurish, looks like they are just roping in people from work from home scams which would seem to fit with their MO everywhere else... --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of the results in the apparently frightening search above, only 102 of them are actually on enWikipedia . Almost all of the articles that search picked up are  articles containing such  phrases "Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, and Craigslist were among the top Internet brands of 2007", or including both WP and their sites as significant Internet sites.   DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that so many sites have copied the "official" versions from Wikipedia now and they might never even get updated, having them up indefinitely now for google searchy "goodness" says a lot about how bad the detection of this kind of behaviour is, and that it might be already too late. --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think you understand--relatively few of these sites are talking about this firm's articles--they are talking about other things, or about websites in general and were just pulled in by the very broad search. Most mirrors get updated. They are more likely to be updated if there are revised versions of the article in place, because almost all links will link to the current version. One of the reasons for fighting spam by having good articles if the subject is worth an article is so that people will see the correct version.  DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The VBulletin article I have not tagged or nominated for anything but probably should be looked at in some form officially... however the reason I did not tag or nominate it is that the attempts to bias it seem to have been mostly fought back by humanity naturally, which is good to see :) it seems to make sense since out of any of them VBulletin would be the one under the most random scrutiny by people on the internet, since people that install a forum are generally more techy and so more likely to make an edit to Wikipedia (rather than what most people do, just see Wikipedia articles on google). However Internet Brands HAS manipulated the article to a lesser extent, for example removing all mentions of the original owner ("Ray Morgan") and descriptions of them increasing prices, as well as wiping that "vBulletin 4.0 Gold" attracted customer concerns, had "Substantial display issues" and too many of SQL queries (don't ask me) apparently: As well as wiping all history of the software completely: And trying to make sure the software is described as popular and bombastically boasting of sites that use it: Making sure that Internet Brands is a strongly associated, well, "brand", with vBulletin, making sure to have links where possible for googley juiceness:
 * - they certainly know how to talk the talk don't they, "Material is granular and not relevant" indeed... I think they are probably long time Wikipedia editors who have been paid on the side to help out...
 * - note their argument seems to be that they "have wikipedia articles", I think this is a key tactic going on from with the self-referential references they can make it go in a circle with them controlling the official marketing "lines" (I have had the misfortune to deal with real life marketing people, you want to have a shower afterwards...)
 * ([http://i44.tinypic.com/211ox1w.gif TONNES of changes)
 * ([http://i44.tinypic.com/211ox1w.gif TONNES of changes)
 * ([http://i44.tinypic.com/211ox1w.gif TONNES of changes)

As I said tho, most of this stuff seems to have naturally been caught due to scrutiny on the article anyway :) one thing they do seem to have managed to keep off the radar is this:

Not sure if they have done more than that or not! I haven't looked for stuff that accounts in use by them that already haven't been named might have done, it's so very very long since it attracts a lot of attention from intrnet peeplies (for reasons I said in first paragraph) I guess: VBulletin?action=history&limit=500 --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This line of argument smacks of fearmongering. If you can't identify additional damage, then perhaps it never existed or has already been eradicated by the standard wiki processes of peer review.  Please stick to citing the "Communists in the State Department" that you can actually name. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Please stick to citing the "Communists in the State Department" that you can actually name" <--- Please stick your insulting BS up yours. Unlike you I have actually been constructive, so "smack" (an interesting choice of words for a self-described "peterphile") your pathetic little sniping at someone else, I won't put up with it. I was trying to help by making sure it was clear that I had only looked at what those accounts had done, not searched thoroughly so that nothing was missed because of anyone assuming the links I was posting were the sum of all that was done.


 * People like you's blind faith in "peer review" is why this has been allowed to go on for more than 4 years. Fact is most people lack initiative and are stunningly gullible, that is human nature, that is why laughably stupid phishing schemes work, why pyramid schemes and work at home scams like those ran by this company work and why "guerilla marketing" works - people largely take stuff at face value.


 * Take this for instance I got curious at the very dodgy name which sounds like you want to "signal" you are a paedophile to others without saying it openly (wasn't there a south park episode about "peter philes" [sic]?), looked up your site, sounds innocent at first ... then only have to google to see "jaqrabbit.com" and "creator of ShotaManga.com a guide to Japanese comics featuring precocious boys"... oh yes... look what "Shota" goes to on Wikipedia... "legal" paedophile porn in cartoon/comic form. You disgust me. It's depressing that you are actually allowed to thoroughly edit articles children will read. Seems to be the majority of what he focuses on contributions-wise, children's stories or cartoons... Utterly creepy.
 * ...I wonder how long that has gone unnoticed too, unless Wikipedia know and just couldn't care less?


 * After I posted that, MER-C found below at the bottom a bunch of IPs that show they have actually not even bothered to hide their corporate IPs editing the pages, which is even more blatant (again ties in with what I said before: Wikipedia is lucky that they were amateurs this time and needs to develop better vetting to catch this kind of thing because it's not hard for them or other companies to simply evolve their tactics now to look like "normal" editors rather than doing it so clumsily...)... SO it's exactly as I suggested, they also tried to do it "anonymously" (the "freelance writers" employed by Internet Brands probably don't know what an IP is, reminds me of when the american congress got caught editing) as well as with named accounts, which means you shouldn't go around making patronising attacks on people, especially if you don't like it when people fight back. --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You just went way overboard there -- I suggest you immediately retract your ad hominem accusations against User:JasonAQuest and read up on No personal attacks. Jpatokal (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikitravel
Full disclosure: I am an admin on the English Wikitravel (although I edit extensively here as well). Although I speak here only for myself, I think I can confidently state that no regular Wikitravel editor had anything to do with this apparent campaign. Internet Brands owns the trademark and website for Wikitravel, and maintains the servers, but has never exerted control over the editorial content of the site (we would fork the project to a new site the second that occurred, believe me). I strongly urge everyone not to let editorial decisions regarding Wikitravel content (both the Wikitravel article and the numerous interwiki links) to be affected by Internet Brands' alleged actions. Powers T 19:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That shouldn't be a problem. As DGG has posted here and elsewhere, legitimate reliably sourced encyclopedic content is welcomed and we have no interest in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. EyeSerene talk 07:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

IP ranges for Internet Brands

 * 67.201.16.0/24
 * 67.201.17.0/24
 * 205.205.28.0/25
 * 207.212.172.0/24
 * 207.212.173.0/24
 * 207.212.174.0/24
 * 207.212.175.0/24

Anyone feel like banning these? MER-C 07:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * wow nice finding those did you run them all through some kind of filter looking for internet brands.com in the domain or something? I probably shouldn't ask but wow.


 * It'd be cool if someone made some kind of heuristic thing that could detect edits that are self-advertising even when they don't stupidly use their own company's IP to edit:


 * Wikipedia is seriously lucky that Internet Brands seem to have employed morons to do their astroturfing, I wouldn't be surprised if they throw a lot more money in the future when it's died down a bit to either pay established editors or accumulate their own "legit" accounts on other things and throw in internet brands stuff whenever they could not arouse suspicion... that's what I get when I try to think like they would anyway. Wikipedia seems relatively defenceless against such an attack?


 * some fun changes there, I looked through out of curiousity :)
 * Looks like they wrote most of the Internet Brands article even back then and that's why it exists at all:
 * - looks like someone thinks the word "corporate" is very important to them.
 * - Playing down an exodus as "a small portion"
 * - Voting to "keep - high value [to them of course!] consumer website"
 * - 9/11 "truther"-ing denial: "explaination [sic] given on this site is inaccurate", "250 plus anomolies [sic]" (lol)
 * - Asking for recommendations on weight loss pills (I guess rewriting corporate history on the internet takes a lot of time!)
 * - Playing down an exodus as "a small portion"
 * - Voting to "keep - high value [to them of course!] consumer website"
 * - 9/11 "truther"-ing denial: "explaination [sic] given on this site is inaccurate", "250 plus anomolies [sic]" (lol)
 * - Asking for recommendations on weight loss pills (I guess rewriting corporate history on the internet takes a lot of time!)

and last but not least
 * - ...err, thanks for that Internet Brands!
 * There's loads of sticking in links to Internet Brands owned websites in articles too, way too many to list and not very interesting other than well being spamming, that's already been covered at Wikipedia_talk:WPSPAM really. Given the scale and how insidious they have been sneaked into so many "relevant" articles I think I have to agree with what people said before that the websites should be put on a blacklist to make sure they are all caught and to stop them sneaking the links back in and doing this again after the fuss has died down (thinking like them that would be the "sensible" thing to do, wait til peoples' attention is gone off them) --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * agreed that many, though not all, of those links were bad, and certainly the bad ones should be removed. They are the main website in a few cases, thoguh, and appropriate also. We're out to be informative, and should use our own judgement about this, not the condemnation of everything wholesale. .  DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The majority of these sites will be blacklisted once I find all the spam domains and sort through them. It's going to take at least a week, and that's hoping that the spam is localized on enwiki. The ones with no links will be blacklisted first, followed by cleanup/blacklisting of any other stuff with little encyclopedic utility later. MER-C 13:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Added to XLinkBot (for now). MER-C 12:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)