Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Oct

musicemissions.com
Guess I am being punished for not following up as soon as I saw it.

One account, I guess the sock-master User:MusicemissionsSolitaryMan started with it, now there are several.




 * You can consolidate 199.126.217.145, 192.187.144.240, 66.222.242.170, 66.222.227.49, and dscanland. We are all the same "Vandal". Dscanland 18:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Needs cleaning up. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Found a couple more spammers and cleaned up the additions from those spammers listed so far (1 - 9). There are good faith additions by other editors too so clean up is messy and blacklisting may not be appropriate.  Do you think bringing it to the attention of WikiProject_Albums would be useful?  -- SiobhanHansa 15:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me. The data itself does not look to bad, album reviews, but the way it is added is not the way forward, especially when some of the accounts have been warned, but continue while not discussing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I left a message for them. -- SiobhanHansa 01:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please let me know what the issue is? I quite regularly add links to our reviews (as other sites do as well). is new to our Editorial team and maybe he is not aware of any issues here. Thanks. dscanland


 * It is not only MusicemissionsSolitaryMan, also the other accounts named above. That the data is available on your site (as well as many other music related sites) does not mean that wikipedia should have a link to all that information.  We are writing an encyclopedia here.  Although your links may be welcome, when they are added by single purpose accounts to external links sections only, these accounts are probably in violation of quite a number of policies and guidelines (not all may apply for each specific, but: neutral point of view policy, Policy 'what wikipedia is not', directory section (and other parts maybe as well), external links guideline, spam guideline, conflict of interest guideline and maybe more).  The violation may not be direct, but because such linkadditions can be questioned against so many of the policies and guidelines I would strongly advise that these accounts make contact with a music related WikiProject (and find a solution there), or only suggest the links on talkpages.  Hope this explains.
 * Regarding this, I have also been contacted on my talkpage by Hstisgod (whom I have given a similar explanation). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is all fine but I'm not sure exactly what the issue is. We have been following the exact guidelines that are listed here: Professional Reviews I ALWAYS make sure that I put the site's rating and put the link in alpha order. So is it not OK to add our reviews to Wikipedia? Or are we going at it the wrong way? I can't find any difference to the way I added the Music Emissions review to Wincing_The_Night_Away to any others that are on this page. I guess what we need is just some clarification of what our violation is/was, Thanks Dscanland 18:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll try and explain:
 * 'what wikipedia is not' policy, directory section. Although it is OK to provide some good on topic links, we do not have to link to all the external sites available.
 * conflict of interest guideline, some of the accounts have a clear conflict of interest, and this guideline states "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when .... 3. Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);".
 * neutral point of view policy/pillar, why link to this site only (these accounts show a quite singular point of view). There are surely even more notable reviews, and still these accounts do not add these.
 * external links guideline, "links should be kept to a minimum", and "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked, which is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines."
 * spam guideline, "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." Although it is often unclear if the edit is good-faith, or indeed to promote the organisation, still it is better to avoid such implications.
 * All these policies and guidelines suggest: discuss first.
 * Now the question here is, should we link to this site anyway? This Articles for Deletion discussion has 4 votes for delete, and the nominator, while the only contestant is you.  I am sorry, I again suggest you to contact an appropriate WikiProject (see this list), and when they think the site is notable enough to be included in reviews, then they can coordinate the addition of links.
 * The page that you show indeed contains a huge linkfarm (well, there is quite some work out there that still needs cleaning), and I am afraid that when we start digging, many of those links should not have been added either. Hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Did a bit more digging. It appears that most of the links (8 out of 17 currently there) on Wincing_The_Night_Away are not on the list of review sites WP:ALBUM provides.  Guess there is a lot of work to be done for the link-cleaners in this area.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, asked for some clarification on that. The 'whitelist' on WP:ALBUM is merely as an example, and they do define your site as being notable, usable as a review.  Still I will ask you, and other people connected to your site to not add the links only (if you think they add to a page, please discuss on the talkpage, or via a wikiproject), per the cited policies and guidelines above.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 23:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I will notify the staff that they aren't to add the reviews directly and that they need to be added to that album's talk page first. Is there a way to turn around all of the links that you have removed then? A lot of those did indeed add value to the articles being largely positive (4.5 stars or more). Thanks for your help with this. Dscanland 17:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dennis, it's evident to me, there can not be a clear and definitive reasoning as to why we are violating wiki policy without going directly to a music project editor. Hstisgod 16:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Another set of related "fan sites"

 * Account
 * Created as a sleeper account 22 August, first edit was today.
 * Sites
 * Sites

Additional sites apparently owned by same spammer


This guy's defining characteristic is that he labels his links "Fan Resource". He showed no sign of slowing down despite warnings, right up until he was blocked by Riana. I'm going to look for more sites, but any chance of resolving his IP so that the bots can possibly get these sites? Videmus Omnia Talk  23:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here we go...

IP is the same for all sites except for meagan-good.com which is 209.40.202.21. At least it's fairly easy to programatically resolve websites (requires a Java Development Kit). MER-C 13:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (COIBot reads the spamlink templates on this page and puts the reported links on the monitorlist, when finding a common IP for the sites, these can be added via this functionality as well (and please do), as COIBot will also resolve the IPs of added links and see if they are on the monitorlist. Although the links in these templates will not result in any results (though the on wiki google search might give a link to the reports when they exist; I will modify the reports so the linksearch also works).  ).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait a moment with that, should prepare COIBot for it (as it goes wrong at the moment :-D). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is working now, please use this with some care, as some IPs are hosting many many sites. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait a moment with that, should prepare COIBot for it (as it goes wrong at the moment :-D). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is working now, please use this with some care, as some IPs are hosting many many sites. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.oldwestdvd.com




User's blocked now for 31 hours, was adding links to this site massively.... May want to keep an eye out SQL(Query Me!) 00:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.thepersiancourtesan.com
Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk  20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Account

http://spam.artistshousemusic.org
The site itself seems OK (the interviews, etc. are legit), but given the uploader's contribs this looks like COI spamming, looking for a second opinion whether anything should be done here. Videmus Omnia Talk  02:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Account
 * Account

associatedcontent.com


This website, Associated Content, hosts topical articles submitted by the public. Authors are paid by how many page views they get. Obviously, that gives authors a major incentive to link to their articles. See this editor's history, for example. We now have 481 links to the site, perhaps half are in articles, and they've been added by many different editors. The AC articles themselves are not professionally written, don't have sources, and aren't really suitable as reliable sources, IMO. Do folks have an opinion about links to this site? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been evaluating links to this site on a case-to-case basis, and almost always end up removing them.. IMHO, they should probably be blocked in the same way that squidoo.com is blocked.. the method of operation - and the resulting low-quality links on Wikipedia are very much the same.. --Versageek 20:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

drugstoretm.com
For the record. I just indefblocked a persistent spammer, all contributions have been cleaned. It may be a meta-candidate later.

Links:
 * - 202.64.69.7

Spammers:

--Dirk Beetstra T C 08:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * also:
 * --Versageek 09:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also:
 * Adbrite ID: 420885
 * Adbrite ID: 420885


 * Related domain:
 * - 202.64.69.7
 * -- A. B. (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Related domains:
 * - 202.64.69.7
 * - 202.64.77.52
 * - 202.64.69.7
 * - 202.64.69.7
 * - 63.251.197.218
 * - 202.64.69.7
 * - 202.64.77.52
 * - 202.64.69.7
 * - 202.64.77.52
 * - 202.64.69.7
 * - 202.64.69.5
 * - 72.22.69.5


 * See these notes:
 * http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-800-217-9246
 * http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-308-217-4614
 * This spammer appears to be a prolific fax spammer as well with an almost unlimited number of domains and fax numbers. I recommend blacklisting on sight at meta (since this guy is probably also certainly spamming other MediaWiki wikis).


 * Public whois registration:
 * Robert Murry
 * 305 Vine st.
 * Liverpool, NY 13088
 * ph: 800-217-9246
 * -- A. B. (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides the already mentioned links COIBot now monitors 202.64.69.7 and 202.64.77.52, which seems to be the majority of the links. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

my-island-penang.com
Added to several pages by several IPs.

Link:

Users:

All cleaned. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Did not even realize I just reported these this morning. COIBot found a maze of IPs and users adding a set of links, if you see the edits per IP alone, it is hard to see that they are related (follow the LinkReports and UserReports from COIBot).
 * (IP of URL: 209.205.12.37)
 * (IP of URL: 205.205.145.60)
 * (IP of URL: 66.43.58.24)
 * (IP of URL: 205.205.34.94)
 * Users:
 * en:user:60.50.39.207
 * en:user:60.50.45.178
 * ms:user:60.52.75.181
 * en:user:60.53.174.40
 * de:user:218.111.197.92
 * en:user:219.94.81.222
 * en:user:219.95.56.227
 * en:user:219.95.61.23
 * en:user:219.95.213.40
 * en:user:Cyclingman
 * en:user:Psycling (the original account in this; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jun).


 * Voila: m:Talk:Spam_blacklist. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 20:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.mystique-magazine.com
Not cleaned yet, I'm going to be away from the computer for a bit. Will check back later and clean it if it still needs to be done. Videmus Omnia Talk  22:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Second account added. Videmus Omnia Talk  16:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * User:205.238.135.18 also spammed this cross-wiki at fr, sv, and es. Could someone more experienced take a look to see if this warrants a report at meta blacklist? Videmus Omnia Talk  16:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

tunetransfers.com
blatant spam - now blacklisted on AntiSpamBot, recorded here for posterity:
 * --Versageek 04:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * --Versageek 04:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

ielection08.com and ibizservicez.com

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 10:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Related domain:
 * http://www.iuniversit.com


 * Google Adsense: 9392173521422451
 * -- A. B. (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.redentertainment.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 12:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

jcsm.org-related domains
A request to whitelist a blacklisted domain came up: so I did some checking to see what the history of this domain was and why it was blacklisted. I found a lot:
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist (permanent link)

Lots of history:
 * 1) Articles for deletion/Jason Gastrich deleted 6 times (once as an attack page)
 * 2) Requests for checkuser/Case/Jason Gastrich
 * 3) Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich/Evidence
 * 4) Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/04
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/03

Lots of sockpuppets:
 * Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jason Gastrich

Lots of domains, only a few of which had been blacklisted:
 * http://www.believeandrepent.com
 * http://www.christianguitar.biz
 * http://equityhomeloanscredit.com
 * http://www.freechristians.org
 * http://www.fundy.org
 * http://www.GoFalo.net
 * http://www.gotoisrael.net
 * http://www.gotojerusalem.net
 * http://www.inerrancy.com
 * Already blacklisted
 * http://www.GoFalo.net
 * http://www.gotoisrael.net
 * http://www.gotojerusalem.net
 * http://www.inerrancy.com
 * Already blacklisted
 * http://www.inerrancy.com
 * Already blacklisted
 * Already blacklisted
 * Already blacklisted
 * Already blacklisted


 * http://www.jcsm.net
 * Already blacklisted
 * Already blacklisted
 * Already blacklisted


 * Already blacklisted
 * Already blacklisted


 * http://www.macsd.org
 * http://www.managementpositions.org
 * http://maximizingtheinternet.com
 * http://michaelnewdow.com
 * http://myspace.com/jasongastrich
 * http://nkjv.org
 * http://nljonline.org
 * http://www.occm.org
 * Already blacklisted
 * http://nkjv.org
 * http://nljonline.org
 * http://www.occm.org
 * Already blacklisted
 * http://www.occm.org
 * Already blacklisted
 * Already blacklisted
 * Already blacklisted
 * Already blacklisted


 * http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.org
 * Already blacklisted
 * Already blacklisted
 * Already blacklisted


 * http://www.topnutritionsites.com
 * http://www.wisequotesbook.com
 * http://www.yecs.org
 * http://www.yecs.org
 * http://www.yecs.org

Google Adsense revenue code: 6669817858049893

Many interesting "ministries":
 * http:// jcsm.org/phoneads/cheap-long-distance.html
 * http:// jcsm.org/phoneads/free-cell-phones.html
 * http:// jcsm.org/phoneads/cell-phone-plans.html
 * http:// jcsm.org/phoneads/international-calling-cards.html
 * http:// jcsm.org/phoneads/talk-america-local.html
 * http:// jcsm.org/phoneads/voip-broadband-phone.html
 * http:// jcsm.org/phoneads/ztel-mci-unlimited.html
 * http:// jcsm.org/phoneads/wireless-phone-service.html

Please add these domains to our bots' watchlists. Thanks! -- A. B. (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

More cookie-cutter fan sites

 * Account
 * Account
 * Account
 * Account

I haven't seen this template before but it's the same on all three sites. Could someone with mad Java skilz resolve the IP and feed this to the bots? Videmus Omnia Talk  02:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The IP for these three sites is 65.99.239.196. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, this information is also available if you click the 'domaintools' link in the template.
 * (use the search engines to find the links on the coibot reports). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

childrenofthecode.org
IP adding the links, interviews, may be of interest, but this way of addition is spamming.



Users:

Already on it for quite some time. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

metalhead.ro
Romanian interviews, user seems to have a COI (IP user = 194.88.148.1, IP url = 194.88.148.14).



Users:

User was warned repeatedly, link is now blacklisted on shadowbot, and the user ran subsequently into a block. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also:
 * This IP is Spanish, not Romanian
 * -- A. B. (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * just got blocked for spamming the link. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Latvian spam
Appears confined to en.wikipedia so far.

Domains:

Google Adsense ID: 9611697539638523

Related domains:

Accounts: -- A. B. (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Local blacklisting requested:
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist (permanent link)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Nick Sullivan spam on Wikipedia
Spam domains:

Related domain:
 * http://www.conjurcards.com

Accounts:
 * Wikiquote:
 * q:en:Special:Contributions/82.21.191.1
 * q:en:Special:Contributions/82.21.191.1



Article:
 * Paul Sullivan (Driving instructor)

Google Adsense ID: 2617828379348300

I will request meta blacklisting. -- A. B. (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Meta request:
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist (permanent link)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

North South Shootout spam
Domains:
 * http://www.northsouthshootout.com
 * redirects to:
 * http://www.ccracingsouvenirs.com
 * http://www.ccracingsouvenirs.com

Accounts: -- A. B. (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Daystar International spam
Articles:
 * All-State Talentshow
 * All state talent show
 * Femidaystar

Spam domains:
 * http://www.daystar.name
 * http://www.daystar-web.com
 * http://www.daystar-web.com

Related domains:
 * http://www.daystar-aei.com
 * http://www.femidaystar.com
 * http://www.femidaystar.com

Account: -- A. B. (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Siwat Chawbangngam spam on Wikipedia
Spammed domains:

Related domains:
 * http://www.disneythailand.com
 * http://www.thaiastore.com
 * http://www.vdofrog.com
 * http://www.vdofrog.com
 * http://www.vdofrog.com

Google Adsense IDs:
 * 4215536586235881
 * 6113268413020932

Accounts:
 * th:Special:Contributions/203.157.16.245
 * th:Special:Contributions/203.157.16.245

Public whois registration data:
 * Siwat Chawbangngam
 * 138 Moo 1 Tambon Wangnamsub
 * Sriprachan, Suphanburi 72140
 * Thailand

I'll request blacklisting on meta of the 2 spammed domains. -- A. B. (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Meta request:
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist (permanent link)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Book promotion spam
This user has been adding paragraphs with short book reviews & links. He's been warned up to uw-advert4, although he blanked his talk page after uw-spam3.



This last domain is a free self-publisher, which, given it's nature as something other than a reliable source, has far too many links on wiki already. --Versageek 19:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Persistent cricket spam

 * Spammed domains:


 * Related domains:


 * Accounts:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive173
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive173
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive173
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive173
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive173
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive173
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive173

Google Adsense ID: 7538481819948879

I will list the spammed domains for local blacklisting. -- A. B. (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.artistshousemusic.org
The site itself seems OK (the interviews, etc. are legit), but given the uploader's contribs this looks like COI spamming, looking for a second opinion whether anything should be done here. Videmus Omnia Talk  02:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Account
 * Account

hibiny.ru
Cross wiki addition of the link (COIBot already caught the link on the Russian wikipedia). User is warned that his cross-wiki additions may earn his link meta-blacklisting.



Users:



Link is now blacklisted on AntiSpamBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest just going ahead and getting it blacklisted now at meta. Traditionally once a spammer's gone x-wiki, we've blacklisted immediately rather than waiting. -- A. B. (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ - proposed for meta blacklisting. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

All my links absolutly different and NOT SPAM!! On russian pages hibiny.ru/ru, on english pages hibiny.ru/en My server - big info center all cities of Murmansk region. hibiny.ru/en/region/murmansk hibiny.ru/en/region/apatity and i.e.

To all cities in Murmansnk region on Wikipedia, I into links about every cities - is this SPAM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibinyru (talk • contribs) 04:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You were, on both wikis, performing link additions only to a site you are affiliated with. You were warned (at least on this wiki) a couple of times to discuss these links, instead of just adding them.  In this way you are here violating a couple of policies and guidelines (neutral point of view policy, 'what wikipedia is not' policy, conflict of interest guideline, external links guideline, and spam guideline).  Hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest you make your case at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist -- that's where any decision will be made to remove your site from the Wikimedia-wide blacklist. You'll have to show that other editors on other projects (such as the Russian Wikipedia) want your links and that your links on those projects were added by established editors and not yourself. If the decision is made that your links have value elsewhere, then it's possible that:
 * Your site will come off of the Wikimedia-wide blacklist at meta:Spam blacklist and just be listed at the English Wikipedia blacklist at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. That's if two or more projects want your links ...OR ...
 * Your site remains on the Wikimedia-wide blacklist but is "whitelisted" just for an individual project such as the Russian Wikipedia. The whitelist for that Wikipedia is at ru:MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist and you can make a whitelisting request at ru:Обсуждение MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Any admin on the Russian Wikipedia can make this change for you.
 * In any event, it's too bad that you pushed so hard on the English Wikipedia in spite of requests to stop. I don't see your links being allowed on the English Wikipedia unless some established editor (with more than 500 edits) asks that we reconsider. In the meantime, if you are going to appeal your blacklisting, you should first study the material that Dirk Beetstra linked to above. Finally, I suggest you bear in mind that all of these projects work on consensus and our rules have been set by community consensus; you'll have a hard time getting any help if you don't work with the community instead of against it. -- A. B. (talk) 11:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll add one final comment -- I like your site; nevertheless, our rules on conflicts of interest have been developed over time based on hard and bitter experience and we cannot let site-owners spam their links. Not even the Queen of England gets to add links to her own site. -- A. B. (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

thesoulmission.com
Also spammed: Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk  01:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Account
 * Account


 * I've got to run and I don't have time to follow up on stuff I just noticed. I think there's more stuff out there besides these 2 domains. Take a look at:
 * other contributors to the recently deleted Ross MacLachlan article (I think an admin can pull up the edit history)
 * other links all these guys have added as well as other articles they've added that were subsequently deleted
 * domaintools and aboutus.org stuff on each domain
 * You may want to get all this blacklisted
 * Gotta run. Good luck, -- A. B. (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotta run. Good luck, -- A. B. (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

protrails.com
Please have the bots monitor:
 * protrails.com
 * americanhiker.com

Spammed domain
 * http://www.protrails.com

Related domain:
 * http://www.americanhiker.com

Account:

Thanks, -- A. B. (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

More porn fansite linkspam
Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk  03:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Account
 * Recent spammed sites
 * Older spammed sites (April/May 2007)
 * Website IPs (looks like just one website per IP address, but from a common provider, most sites registered to the same company. The sites all have a similar look.)
 * Older spammed sites (April/May 2007)
 * Website IPs (looks like just one website per IP address, but from a common provider, most sites registered to the same company. The sites all have a similar look.)
 * Older spammed sites (April/May 2007)
 * Website IPs (looks like just one website per IP address, but from a common provider, most sites registered to the same company. The sites all have a similar look.)
 * Older spammed sites (April/May 2007)
 * Website IPs (looks like just one website per IP address, but from a common provider, most sites registered to the same company. The sites all have a similar look.)
 * Website IPs (looks like just one website per IP address, but from a common provider, most sites registered to the same company. The sites all have a similar look.)
 * Website IPs (looks like just one website per IP address, but from a common provider, most sites registered to the same company. The sites all have a similar look.)
 * Website IPs (looks like just one website per IP address, but from a common provider, most sites registered to the same company. The sites all have a similar look.)
 * Website IPs (looks like just one website per IP address, but from a common provider, most sites registered to the same company. The sites all have a similar look.)
 * Website IPs (looks like just one website per IP address, but from a common provider, most sites registered to the same company. The sites all have a similar look.)
 * Website IPs (looks like just one website per IP address, but from a common provider, most sites registered to the same company. The sites all have a similar look.)
 * Website IPs (looks like just one website per IP address, but from a common provider, most sites registered to the same company. The sites all have a similar look.)
 * Website IPs (looks like just one website per IP address, but from a common provider, most sites registered to the same company. The sites all have a similar look.)
 * Website IPs (looks like just one website per IP address, but from a common provider, most sites registered to the same company. The sites all have a similar look.)
 * Website IPs (looks like just one website per IP address, but from a common provider, most sites registered to the same company. The sites all have a similar look.)
 * Website IPs (looks like just one website per IP address, but from a common provider, most sites registered to the same company. The sites all have a similar look.)
 * Website IPs (looks like just one website per IP address, but from a common provider, most sites registered to the same company. The sites all have a similar look.)

http://spam.kgcinternational.com
From this report at WP:COIN. Videmus Omnia Talk  14:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles
 * Link
 * Account
 * Link
 * Account
 * Account

Music sites

 * Account


 * Sites spammed
 * Website IP - there appear to be a lot of domains on this IP, please let me know if I've screwed up by adding it here.
 * Website IP - there appear to be a lot of domains on this IP, please let me know if I've screwed up by adding it here.
 * Website IP - there appear to be a lot of domains on this IP, please let me know if I've screwed up by adding it here.
 * Website IP - there appear to be a lot of domains on this IP, please let me know if I've screwed up by adding it here.
 * Website IP - there appear to be a lot of domains on this IP, please let me know if I've screwed up by adding it here.
 * Website IP - there appear to be a lot of domains on this IP, please let me know if I've screwed up by adding it here.

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk  15:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

tonebee.com
For the record:



For a set of the IPs, see the COIBot LinkReport. Now blacklisted on en.wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Porn linkspam

 * Account
 * Sites
 * Website IPs
 * Website IPs
 * Website IPs
 * Website IPs
 * Website IPs
 * Website IPs
 * Website IPs
 * Website IPs
 * Website IPs
 * Website IPs

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk  18:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually this seems to be the same spammer as, above. Videmus Omnia Talk  18:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Associated Content links
Are these all self-published spam links?
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Linksearch&target=%2A.associatedcontent.com&namespace=&limit=500&offset=0

I'm trying to figure out if this is another ezinearticles or suite101.com all over again:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Mar

Take a look at the business model described in the Associated Content article -- what do others think? -- A. B. (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.justpressplay.net
(pulled from august archive)


 * Spammer

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk  14:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * IP is adding text with references pulled from this page. Trouble is, the site is a forum, certainly not a reliable source.  And I even doubt if this would have a place in external links sections.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.chopinmusic.net

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 11:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Spamming of ptrades.com

 * http://spam.fantasyfuturesexchange.com redirects to ptrades.com
 * http://spam.taxshelterhotline.com
 * http://spam.ptrades.com
 * http://spam.kerrrealestate.biz


 * Accounts

--Hu12 12:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.celebs101.com

 * Account
 * Account

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk  12:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.chemtracers.com

 * others
 * others

Adsense pub-4310647374668370
 * http://spam.askjohnq.com
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

informationbible.com
Adsense pub-5640870224015100


 * (blocked for spamming yesterday morning)
 * (added two new this morning)

Proposed at the local blacklist. -- SiobhanHansa 21:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Its been added--Hu12 21:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

voip-services-provider.co.uk


Spamsocks: Spamming articles that have nothing at all to do with VOIP, quite odd.. --Versageek 06:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * voip-services-provider.co.uk was just blacklisted on meta after spamming Wikisource


 * Related domain, also blacklisted on meta now:


 * Accounts:
 * s:en:Special:Contributions/59.95.178.57
 * meta:Special:Contributions/59.95.184.60
 * -- A. B. (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * meta:Special:Contributions/59.95.184.60
 * -- A. B. (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.ww1photos.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 11:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.quirkee.com

 * Spammers

Long term WP:COI spamming. See also WP:COIN. MER-C 12:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.chargedaudio.com

 * Spammers
 * 15:14, 22 Sept 2007
 * 13:06, 22 Sept 2007 & 13:07
 * 16:03, 22 Sept 2007
 * 16:26, 22 Sept 2007
 * 14:14, 22 Sept 2007
 * 07:14, 29 Sept 2007
 * 13:52, 22 Sept 2007
 * 08:53, 2 Sept 2007
 * 15:40, 4 August 2007
 * 11:13, 14 July 2007
 * 12:21, 7 July 2007
 * 12:38, 14 July 2007 (additional edit appears unrelated, different person)
 * 16:41, 4 August 2007
 * 11:36, 14 July 2007
 * 07:52, 8 July 2007
 * 09:41, 8 July 2007
 * 13:00, 14 July 2007 & 13:04, 21 July 2007 (different articles)
 * 18:09, 24 June 2007 & 06:53, 30 June 2007 (same article)


 * 10 external links at the moment. I don't have time to investigate further. Looks like a spammer in progress changing ip addresses with each edit. --Ronz 16:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * All links removed. IPs updated with all the ones I found. --Ronz 04:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's 17 ip's adding the same link, in all but three cases making only a single edit. Looks like someone changing ip addresses to deliberately hide spam activity, but perhaps there's another explanation? --Ronz 04:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: Non-commercial content was added. Please do check before removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.65.115 (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SPAM, WP:EL, WP:NOT. I've checked them all and they are all in violation.  Further, the method of their inclusion alone makes them suspect.  Further, you're commenting from the very same ip block that is doing the spamming. --Ronz 16:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

-- I've checked and besides being non-commercial but resource articles, they are not in violation of WP:SPAM, WP:EL, WP:NOT, you might want to double check that with another person. Nonetheless you seem adamant on your actions. So what can I say. All the best. When you have a service provider that sucks and keeps resetting, you will understand the downsides of a dynamic IP address. Til then... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.65.115 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 22 September 2007
 * Well, I have checked as well, we can see that this is (apparently) one single editor who is performing link-additions only (note: wikipedia defines this as spam, however appropriate the links are (the definition spam has here nothing to do with the content of the site, it is how it is added), and indeed, we are not a linkfarm). Although the links are pointing to non-commercial information, the site has a strong commercial part (selling CDs).  I would certainly say that these are to be avoided.  Hope this explains (by the way, if your IP-hopping is a problem, please register an account).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And the one editor has added another link. What's the next step? Blacklisting? --Ronz 15:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.tvshowsongs.com

 * Account
 * Account

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk  13:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I blacklisted this on AntiSpamBot. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Crosswiki spam. Videmus Omnia Talk  03:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.bharatbook.com http://spam.eresourceerp.com

 * Spammers

Looks like a COI as well, I've indefblocked the user. Might want to be on the lookout for more. SQL(Query Me!) 03:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Added spammer and an additional site. MER-C 13:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.meteorites.com.au

 * Spammers

MER-C 08:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Bollywood spam
samyuktha.50webs.com cinefun4all.info bollysite.com amishapatel.50megs.com 123bollywood.net kavya.50webs.com meerajasmin.50webs.com cinefun4all.net nazaraone.com hritikroshan.50megs.com piam.50megs.com amishapatel.com ajaydevgan.net
 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 12:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

more,
 * fatfreekitchen.com


 * matrimonialbank.com

--Hu12 (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.cockhungryhoes.com
Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk  18:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Account
 * Account

http://.id-protect.co.uk

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 18:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.spamontheinside.info
--CliffC 21:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Commercial Spamming

 * http://spam.gopcusa.com
 * http://spam.saveontapestries.com
 * http://spam.tapestrycatalogue.com
 * http://spam.tapestries-tapestry.com
 * http://spam.yogalaff.com
 * http://spam.bbloffshore.com
 * http://spam.planetpvc.co.uk


 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 10:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.huskerscoop.com
Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk  14:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Account
 * Account

home and office decorating spam


were spammed by:

this IP added spammy inline links & (copyvio) images which had been uploaded earlier by: to Curtain and Furniture

Other domains advertised on those sites, but not spammed here yet, include:
 * --Versageek 05:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * --Versageek 05:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * --Versageek 05:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * --Versageek 05:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Website IP:

. MER-C 09:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * stainedglass.cc (above) was also spammed here.


 * Google Adsense ID for all the sites above: 3719995789157785


 * Additional IP address:


 * I searched on various components of domaintools' public whois registration data (included in the spamlink data) for these sites:
 * Jinge Zhu
 * 2114 Lynpark Ave
 * Dayton, Ohio 45439
 * United States
 * +1.9376431324
 * zhujinge@yahoo.com
 * Searching the e-mail address turned up this domain: 90520.com. Checking domaintools, I saw that the registration contained the same e-mail address, so I checked out the web site. It used the same Google Adsense ID and listed links to these 44 more sites:
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirmed all were tied to the same owners, either by whois registration or Google Adsense number. None of this batch of 44 presently have links on en.wikipedia but should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I checked out the "Related Domains" sections on each site's AboutUs.org page looking to see what other domains this spammer might own. Those sections are based on AboutUs.org's bot's best guess of what domains are related and the accuracy is about 65%; I confirmed the following 21 more sites were truly related based on either domain registration or Google Adsense IDs:
 * None are presently spammed here but I think they should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * None are presently spammed here but I think they should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * None are presently spammed here but I think they should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * None are presently spammed here but I think they should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * None are presently spammed here but I think they should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * None are presently spammed here but I think they should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * None are presently spammed here but I think they should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * None are presently spammed here but I think they should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * None are presently spammed here but I think they should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * None are presently spammed here but I think they should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * None are presently spammed here but I think they should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * None are presently spammed here but I think they should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * None are presently spammed here but I think they should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * None are presently spammed here but I think they should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * None are presently spammed here but I think they should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * None are presently spammed here but I think they should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * None are presently spammed here but I think they should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * None are presently spammed here but I think they should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * None are presently spammed here but I think they should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * None are presently spammed here but I think they should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * None are presently spammed here but I think they should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * None are presently spammed here but I think they should be monitored. -- A. B. (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Another spamsock: - reported to AIV, he's spamming some of those gaming domains as well.. domaintools says there are over 1500 domains on the same website IP (64.202.163.135). --Versageek 14:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not understand these odd "Silkroadgold" edits at first. Now that I see he has a number of gaming-related sites, some related to this, I am concerned that he will start adding game spam in addition to the current list of decorating and office supply domains.


 * Also note that some of the additions are semi-vandalistic or, at a minimum, inappropriate and disruptive tests on real articles.


 * The spammer ignored at least 6 warnings that I know of; I recommend locally blacklisting all of these sites at this point. -- A. B. (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One final related domain I found:
 * -- A. B. (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisting request: -- A. B. (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist (permanent link)


 * Spamsock:
 * Spamsock:
 * Spamsock: --Versageek 02:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

More website IPs (does the bot know how to parse cidr ranges?):


 * (particularly 68.178.232.99)
 * (particularly 68.178.232.99)
 * (particularly 68.178.232.99)

MER-C 03:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.rantpoint.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 10:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Still spamming: /. MER-C 13:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving problem
Our current monthly archive, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Sep has just exceeded the transclusion limit. Time to split? MER-C 06:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.javabeat.net http://spam.bea.com + various Splogspot domains

 * Spam pages

http://spam.foxrocks.blogspot.com http://spam.googlebeats.blogspot.com http://spam.hikrish.blogspot.com
 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

Somewhat mouldy, but better late than never. The referrers in bea.com urls I removed scream spam to me. MER-C 11:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Bangkok real estate spam

 * Spam pages

http://spam.vegatravelbangkok.com http://spam.easypropertybangkok.com http://spam.bangkokhomequality.com http://spam.powermarineservice.com http://spam.bangkokproperty.blogspot.com
 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 13:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.lucypinderfans.com

 * Account
 * Account

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk  17:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

articlesrevenue.com
The domain name tells the story here.. typical low-content, high advert stuff.. This site has only been in operation for a few months, it's one to be on the lookout for going forward. --Versageek 17:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Even more porn linkspam

 * Account
 * Sites
 * Website IPs
 * 204.9.177.195
 * Website IPs
 * 204.9.177.195
 * Website IPs
 * 204.9.177.195
 * Website IPs
 * 204.9.177.195
 * Website IPs
 * 204.9.177.195
 * Website IPs
 * 204.9.177.195

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk  03:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed the spamlink monitoring of 204.9.177.195, gives a lot of hits on various typepad.com pages (which may be questionable anyway). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ilasabba spam on Wikipedia
Google Adsense ID: 0204262978948879 Yahoo Ad ID: USYPN0028
 * Spam domains:
 * URL redirection for:
 * URL redirection for:
 * www.kqzyfj.com/click-2523833-10313696 (FastWeb Sign Up Page)
 * www.kqzyfj.com/click-2523833-10384568
 * Blacklisted domain
 * http:// friendfinder.com/go/g882501/
 * www.resellerspanel.com/?a=dedicatedhosting
 * www.dedicatedhosting.com/affiliates/af_tracking.php?afid=55-694205&progtype=1
 * URL redirection for:
 * http:// thavidu99.solution72.hop.clickbank.net
 * URL redirection in turn for:
 * www.acnecured.com/?hop=thavidu99
 * http:// friendfinder.com/go/g882501/
 * www.resellerspanel.com/?a=dedicatedhosting
 * www.dedicatedhosting.com/affiliates/af_tracking.php?afid=55-694205&progtype=1
 * URL redirection for:
 * http:// thavidu99.solution72.hop.clickbank.net
 * URL redirection in turn for:
 * www.acnecured.com/?hop=thavidu99
 * www.dedicatedhosting.com/affiliates/af_tracking.php?afid=55-694205&progtype=1
 * URL redirection for:
 * http:// thavidu99.solution72.hop.clickbank.net
 * URL redirection in turn for:
 * www.acnecured.com/?hop=thavidu99
 * URL redirection in turn for:
 * www.acnecured.com/?hop=thavidu99
 * www.acnecured.com/?hop=thavidu99


 * Related domains:

-- A. B. (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Accounts:


 * Still spamming today:
 * -- A. B. (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

mybabymonsters.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 10:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.twitchfilm.net

 * Spammers

I won't push too hard on these links, as they appear to have some value. MER-C 12:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Colorado Travel Company spam on Wikipedia

 * Spam domains:


 * Related domains:

-- A. B. (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Accounts:

smartlabs.pl

 * Spammer

This editor repeatedly inserts a link to his own calculator program across a range of articles, and never responds to Talk. Since I already did one round of removals, and left a spam warning on his Talk, I'd appreciate it if someone else could remove some of them. So far 10 of his 11 Wikipedia edits are insertion or re-insertion of this link. EdJohnston 13:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Cross-wiki spam -- I suggest you list at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist, -- A. B. (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Another IP:


 * Cross-wiki spam:
 * de:Spezial:Beiträge/83.15.80.234
 * pl:Specjalna:Wkład/83.15.80.234
 * pl:Dyskusja wikipedysty:83.15.80.234 -spam warning on pl.wikipedia
 * pl:Specjalna:Wkład/195.117.19.227
 * -- A. B. (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I proposed adding smartlabs.pl to the blacklist at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist, due to the entry of this link on multiple Wikipedias. EdJohnston 01:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.healthinsurancediscount.com
Blatant spammer:
 * The IP is Comcast in Tennessee and the company is out of Tennessee.
 * The IP is Comcast in Tennessee and the company is out of Tennessee.
 * The IP is Comcast in Tennessee and the company is out of Tennessee.

They also own, but haven't spammed: --Versageek 14:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Going through the AboutUs.org pages, here are some additional domains they own:
 * http://www.healthins101.com
 * http://www.oregonlifequotes.com
 * http://www.oregonlifequotes.com


 * These I got from searching on their toll-free phone #:
 * http://brinsoncochranfinancial.com
 * http://www.insuringtennessee.com
 * http://www.tennesseehealthins.com
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.tennesseehealthins.com
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at the domain registration, the contact data on the web pages and the fine print on one of their contract forms, it looks like they have operations and offices in both Oregon and Tennessee. -- A. B. (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

mecatiss.info


Also a very different site but linked through registration details and spammer behavior:



Appears to be cross wiki too so have recommending for the meta blacklist.

-- SiobhanHansa 16:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There's also a mecatiss.com domain that's related; I recommend blacklisting as well. It presently has links on en and fr.wikipedias. -- A. B. (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks A. B. I should have spotted taht one. Have added to meta request.  Others have now been blacklisted  -- SiobhanHansa 01:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * mecatiss.com also added -- SiobhanHansa 10:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

recordgone.com
Felony-expungement site needs its own expungement, thanks.

--CliffC 00:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Accounts:
 * IP is registered to the Art & Frame Company, Costa Mesa, CA
 * IP is registered to the Art & Frame Company, Costa Mesa, CA
 * IP is registered to the Art & Frame Company, Costa Mesa, CA
 * IP is registered to the Art & Frame Company, Costa Mesa, CA


 * "RecordGone.com is dba of the Law Offices of Mathew K. Higbee a California Corporation"


 * Related sites:
 * http://www.ocesq.com
 * http://www.utah-expungement.com
 * http://www.washington-expungement.com
 * http://www.record-gone.com
 * http://www.arizona-expungement.com
 * http://www.nevada-expungement.com
 * Google Adsense ID: 6870156755673184
 * -- A. B. (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.arizona-expungement.com
 * http://www.nevada-expungement.com
 * Google Adsense ID: 6870156755673184
 * -- A. B. (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Google Adsense ID: 6870156755673184
 * -- A. B. (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

ecology-solutions.com.au and uscetnet.blogspot.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 09:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest that it's time for local blacklisting -- I count a total of 4 warnings and a block. -- A. B. (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's helpful to leave "cookie crumbs" somewhere (i.e., live "http://" links) so that a future linksearch will turn up a record of previous spam. Since these domains may get blacklisted soon, I've taken the liberty of disabling the links here and posting them on the two spammer pages. -- A. B. (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

drivermadness.net

 * Spam articles


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 10:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Cross-wiki:
 * fr:Special:Contributions/91.128.50.39
 * it:Special:Contributions/91.128.50.39
 * pt:Special:Contributions/91.128.50.39
 * Time to blacklist at meta? -- A. B. (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Time to blacklist at meta? -- A. B. (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.wallpapers.photo4everyone.com
Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk  12:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Account
 * Account

Indian spam
http://spam.eajmer.com http://spam.epushkar.com http://spam.kishangarhyellowpages.com http://spam.ajmeryellowpages.com
 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 10:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.americanindian.net

 * Spammers

Cross-posted from WP:COIN. MER-C 14:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Related domains (not spammed that I can tell):


 * Google Adsense ID: 7383745278970247


 * Another account:


 * I just noticed that no one has spoken to him about his links. --11:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.stars-plastic-surgery.com http://spam.ccrtabs.com



 * Spammers

No cleanup or warnings done yet, I'm on a slow connection. Videmus Omnia Talk  19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Added spammer and site spammed. MER-C 07:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

currenttimeindia.com
Multiple IP's have been adding this link to articles about India.. I only caught the most recent two.. They are making minor, and often unnecessary changes to the text of the article when they insert the link, presumably to reduce the likelyhood of getting reverted.



-- Versa geek  05:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * More Spamsocks..

-- Versa geek  05:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Spamsocks:


 * I've cleaned all ~80 links they added here, this should really be blacklisted -- Versa geek  06:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * local blacklisting requested -- Versa geek  06:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned all ~80 links they added here, this should really be blacklisted -- Versa geek  06:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * local blacklisting requested -- Versa geek  06:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned all ~80 links they added here, this should really be blacklisted -- Versa geek  06:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * local blacklisting requested -- Versa geek  06:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned all ~80 links they added here, this should really be blacklisted -- Versa geek  06:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * local blacklisting requested -- Versa geek  06:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * local blacklisting requested -- Versa geek  06:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Two related domains, not known to have been spammed:
 * http://timeiseqtomoney.blogspot.com
 * http://www.bignothing.co.in
 * -- A. B. (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

They are active again today, a new spamsock - belonging to the same company as all of yesterdays.. This should be the last we see of this domain here on en.wp, as it is now on the local mediawiki blacklist.. (Thanks Beetstra!) -- Versa geek  14:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

British magazine spam

 * Previous incidents
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive May

http://spam.policereview.com http://spam.janes-defence-weekly.com http://spam.timeout.com http://spam.theweek.co.uk http://spam.220triathlon.com http://spam.screeninternational.com http://spam.homesandantiques.magazine.co.uk http://spam.trygardeningwhich.co.uk http://spam.computingwhich.co.uk http://spam.whichlegal.co.uk http://spam.macuser.co.uk http://spam. pokerplayermagazine.co.uk http://spam.autoexpress.co.uk http://spam.mensfitnessmagazine.co.uk http://spam.mensfitness.co.uk http://spam.fourfourtwo.co.uk http://spam.forteantimes.com
 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

I won't push too hard, as these links may have value, but with edits like this one this is obvious spam. MER-C 10:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * More spam. I'm sick of dealing with this. MER-C 10:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Even more spam. Can someone pour cold water on these spammers, please? MER-C 12:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.scopeglamour.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 10:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

csrcenter.net

 * Spammers

MER-C 10:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Related domain, not spammed yet:
 * http://www. csrcentre.net (British spelling variant)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Movie spam

 * Previous incidents
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Sep

http://spam.beatnikmovies.com http://spam.modmovies.com http://spam.rockabillymovies.com http://spam.hippiemovies.com http://spam.liverpoolmovies.com
 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 11:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All resolve to the same IP:
 * --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Another spam domain:
 * http://www.lsdmovies.com


 * Related domains:
 * http://www.digmyshirt.com
 * http://www.videobeat.com
 * http://www.doowopmovies.com
 * http://www.doowopvideos.com
 * http://www.doowopmovies.com
 * http://www.doowopvideos.com
 * http://www.doowopvideos.com


 * Account:
 * -- A. B. (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

4π^2 English panorama spam
They're back...


 * Previous incidents
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jul


 * Sites spammed


 * New spammers
 * zh:Special:Contributions/84.66.253.240

I also note that the spammer has changed his website configuration such that the url spam.york360.co.uk actually works. There are also various other spamlinks that have reappeared cross-wiki.

Blacklisting requested. MER-C 09:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Website IPs:

(scotland360.co.uk only)

MER-C 13:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * User has started a discussion on my talkpage after I gave a uw-spam4im (and blocked ).  EHarrison has admitted a conflict of interest in this case, I have suggested discussing with an appropriate wikiproject or discussing on talkpages (though I expect that meta blacklisting will be performed soon).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I say that www.scotland360.co.uk and www.wales360.co.uk are domains not owned by us and have been caught by the same bot that has removed links I have added. I promise that I will not add any more external links from today onwards, if I can just add/keep 3 to these cities. Hope you can please help and close this discussion. I was only genuinely trying to promote tourism and an appreciation of these heritage cities. --EHarrison 14:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have requested cancelling the blacklisting on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The site-owner was warned 9 times and chose to ignore the warnings. Now he's promising not to spam us anymore ... if we let him keep 3 links here?


 * Here's MER-C's painstakingly compiled list of earlier IPs from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jul
 * Cross wiki spam IPs:
 * bg.wikipedia:
 * bg:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
 * cy.wikipedia:
 * cy:Special:Contributions/81.77.115.48
 * cy:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
 * da.wikipedia:
 * da:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
 * da:Special:Contributions/81.77.115.48
 * de.wikipedia:
 * de:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
 * de:Special:Contributions/81.77.115.48
 * de:Special:Contributions/84.71.132.4
 * es.wikipedia:
 * es:Special:Contributions/84.67.52.92
 * fi.wikipedia:
 * fi:Special:Contributions/81.79.217.232
 * fr.wikipedia:
 * fr:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
 * fr:Special:Contributions/84.67.52.92
 * fr:Special:Contributions/81.79.64.84
 * gl.wikipedia:
 * gl:Special:Contributions/81.79.217.232
 * it.wikipedia:
 * it:Special:Contributions/81.79.64.84
 * it:Special:Contributions/84.67.180.33
 * ja.wikipedia:
 * ja:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
 * ja:Special:Contributions/81.77.115.48
 * nl.wikipedia:
 * nl:Special:Contributions/84.67.52.92
 * nn.wikipedia:
 * nn:Special:Contributions/81.77.115.48
 * no.wikipedia:
 * no:Special:Contributions/81.79.217.232
 * no:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
 * pl.wikipedia:
 * pl:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
 * pl:Special:Contributions/84.67.180.33
 * pl:Special:Contributions/81.77.115.48
 * pt.wikipedia:
 * pt:Special:Contributions/84.67.180.33
 * ru.wikipedia:
 * ru:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
 * simple.wikipedia:
 * simple:Special:Contributions/81.79.217.232
 * sv.wikipedia:
 * sv:Special:Contributions/81.77.115.48
 * sv:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
 * tr.wikipedia:
 * tr:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
 * zh.wikipedia:
 * zh:Special:Contributions/81.77.115.48
 * zh:Special:Contributions/81.79.64.84
 * nn.wikipedia:
 * nn:Special:Contributions/81.77.115.48
 * no.wikipedia:
 * no:Special:Contributions/81.79.217.232
 * no:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
 * pl.wikipedia:
 * pl:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
 * pl:Special:Contributions/84.67.180.33
 * pl:Special:Contributions/81.77.115.48
 * pt.wikipedia:
 * pt:Special:Contributions/84.67.180.33
 * ru.wikipedia:
 * ru:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
 * simple.wikipedia:
 * simple:Special:Contributions/81.79.217.232
 * sv.wikipedia:
 * sv:Special:Contributions/81.77.115.48
 * sv:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
 * tr.wikipedia:
 * tr:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
 * zh.wikipedia:
 * zh:Special:Contributions/81.77.115.48
 * zh:Special:Contributions/81.79.64.84


 * Two related domains:


 * As noted by EHarrison, scotland360.co.uk and wales360.co.uk appear to be owned by someone else.


 * Google Adsense ID: 8858204890177449


 * I recommend proceeding with blacklisting at meta (dropping the scotland and wales domains while adding the two related domains I noted above). If an established editor really, really wants those 3 links, they can be whitelisted locally on en.wikipedia but I think we owe it to the other 15 20 projects to blacklist these domains. Personally, I am strongly opposed any whitelisting given this history. -- A. B. (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And if the user really wanted to contribute, he should be uploading the pictures, not adding heaps of external links to various articles. After all, there is a link to upload files on every page. MER-C 06:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning I have only recently found this article! I have in the past added links on European wiki sites as there is a huge amount of tourists from these countries that visit Chester and York that could benefit. We have received grants for creating these records and I was just trying create a wider audience. I would be more than happy to upload some photos from our collection. Discrimination Campaign: Other council website eg visityork,visitchester,visitbath,visitengland,visitlondon... have added links on every city! They get paid through fixed council taxes, we get paid through grants and optional ads. I don't mean to be bitter but could you explain the difference please? Please feel free to remove any of our links (apologies for your time spent on us), if you could please replace the York,Chester and Bath links as these were on from the start.--EHarrison 08:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr. Harrison,
 * In response to your questions and comments, here are my personal observations:
 * Your bitterness is regrettable ... and painful I'm sure. We normally blacklist domains after 4 ignored warnings; I counted at least 9 that you were given. Perhaps had you heeded our warnings and our dozens upon dozens of link removals we would not have come to this juncture.
 * We normally blacklist links if 2 or more Wikipedia projects (languages) are spammed. I note that you added your links to 21 different projects.
 * Here are our relevant rules for this situation:
 * Conflict of Interest Guideline
 * You may not add links to your own web sites
 * Spam Guideline
 * You linking campaign meets our definition of link-spamming -- in fact, it's a case of massive spamming
 * "What Wikipedia is Not"" Policy
 * In particular, the Wikipedia is not a soapbox section: we are not a vehicle for promoting your cities, your sites or your Google Adsense account (ID# 8858204890177449)
 * Likewise, "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files"
 * We have over 3 million links on the English Wikipedia alone. Too many don't measure up to our External Links Guideline as you noted above; my personal guess is that the number's probably about a million. You are welcome to help us by identifying any you think are garbage in those articles.
 * Most of these unsuitable links have been added in good faith but with poor judgement by well-motivated editors not personally connected with the domain. That was not the case in your situation.
 * I estimate we get 150 to 250 links added by spammers every 24 hours. Perhaps only 20 cases per week are bad enough to get reported here. A smaller subset are spammed persistently enough to qualify for local blacklisting on the English Wikipedia. An even smaller number are blacklisted globally across all Wikimedia's 700+ projects (Wiktionary, Wikipedia, etc.) ... and, sadly, you made the cut.
 * As you've personally experienced, it's just so easy to add links to Wikipedia even when it's in contravention of our rules and community consensus. We rely on good faith and then, if that doesn't work, requests, warnings and account blocks. But all of that is just so laughably ineffectual against a determined spammer, as you demonstrated time and again. So we have this one other tool that we use when absolutely necessary -- our blacklist, a software filter. One reason we are so reluctant to blacklist globally is because this blacklist is used by more than just our Wikimedia Foundation projects. All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software also incorporate our blacklist in their spam filtering.
 * Links are not normally removed from the blacklist in response to site-owner requests but rather when they are requested by established editors for specific articles and shown to be of encyclopedic quality. Any MediaWiki wiki also has a "whitelist" where links can be whitelisted (for that wiki only) upon requests from established editors. Ours is administered at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist‎.
 * Personally, I like your sites. Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
 * -- A. B. (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.telugucinemastills.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 08:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional accounts:


 * Additional domains:
 * http://www.trisha-forever.com
 * http://www.charanfans.com
 * http://www.navzs.com
 * http://www.udayfans.com
 * http://www.saistills.com
 * http://www.gitamites.com
 * http://www.suhanikalita.com
 * Adsense ID 9343931772408978 (not all sites)
 * http://www.saistills.com
 * http://www.gitamites.com
 * http://www.suhanikalita.com
 * Adsense ID 9343931772408978 (not all sites)
 * http://www.suhanikalita.com
 * Adsense ID 9343931772408978 (not all sites)
 * Adsense ID 9343931772408978 (not all sites)


 * Other links also added but possibly not associated with this domain (different Adsense and/or registration):
 * http://www.chranfans.com
 * http://www.ragalahari.net
 * http://www.musicandhra.com
 * http://www.ReenaCreations.com
 * Ownership of all these additional domains is a bit murky -- they should be monitored they're not necessarily spam
 * -- A. B. (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.ReenaCreations.com
 * Ownership of all these additional domains is a bit murky -- they should be monitored they're not necessarily spam
 * -- A. B. (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

spam.handster.com spam.pocketpcaddict.com

 * Spammers

Appears to be on a shared ip, so need to look for anything to do with handheld devices in the contribs. MER-C 10:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Various x-wiki spamming, too: de, fr, pl, ja, nl, it, pt, sv, es, ru, zh, cs, tr, ro, vi, simple and probably small wikis as well. Blacklisting requested.


 * P.S. I am now writing a spamsearch program that would search small wikis - does anyone have a plain text list of all Wikimedia projects? MER-C 10:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * it exists already--Nick1915 11:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Eagle's spamsearch only does the largest 57 Wikipedias. There are 725 wikimedia wikis, most of which are susceptible to spam. MER-C 11:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd love a tool like the one you're working on! As for tracking down this spammer's work, the x-wiki links in the spamlink template searches contributions in all Wikimedia wikis (when it's working). - A. B. (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Associated Content
I noticed there plenty of links to Associated Content, which "enables everyone to publish their content", meaning that most probably AC is not a reliable source for wikipedia.

Suggestion: Thim all "Associated content" mercilessly (replacing its refs with ), unless the author has a wikipedia article which states the expertise of the cited author in the area in question.

Any comments? `'Míkka 17:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I've just noticed that it was already doubted: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. `'Míkka 17:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Also discussed on this page last month. I tend to agree with you and Versgeek.  It's not really spam most of the time so much as poor judgment by good faith editors. -- SiobhanHansa 18:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on my experience with ezinearticles and with suite101.com spam, I'm guessing that if you look very deep you'll find the majority of these links were spammed. I haven't done this so I may be wrong, but that was certainly the case with those somewhat similar domains. -- A. B. (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

ontheinside.info
Spammed again, will ask for a site block next time.

--CliffC 01:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

dutchops.com
Maybe of interest, seems to contain quite some data and quite some text (maybe useful as references?), but gets spammed:



Accounts:

--Dirk Beetstra T C 10:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

All wiki spamsearching (finally)
At last, a tool that searches all 725 wikimedia wikis. Information, download links and source code at available at User:MER-C/Spamsearch. MER-C 10:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.builderandengineer.co.uk http://spam.timberinconstruction.co.uk http://spam.entheweb.co.uk



 * Spammers

MER-C 11:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Telugu spam

 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 11:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

localhands.com coi spam
This site was spammed by a few IP's, then the user mentioned below. The site is owned by Wazup Media as shown here. -- Versa geek  04:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

internet-searching.info
An advertisement ridden directory site, it's also got 1 hit on es.wp. -- Versa geek  16:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)