Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Sep

Possible advertising-based user
User:Wark611 has been creating very ad-like articles about Italian singers. Something to look into. Black-Velvet 04:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Disguised informational sites
I just removed a number of links from atrial fibrillation and I noticed that there are websites which seem to be serious and informational at a first glance, but in fact are advertisements for medical treatments. Examples: What such sites have in common: a very polished brochure-like look, no explicit advertisements, and no "About" page that explains who pays for keeping a site like that online. I think I've seen external links like that in some other article on a medical condition, although I can't recall which article it was.
 * afibfacts.com/Treatment_Options_for_Atrial_Fibrillation/ - in tiny print at the bottom it says "sponsored by AtriCure", manufacturer of surgical devices. Guess what: almost all treatment options are forms of surgery.
 * afadvisor.org "This site is reviewed by a group of experts experienced in helping you better understand your condition." - guess what: copyright AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company and this site focuses on medication.

The reason I'm mentioning this here is that this is a very subtle type of spam that could very well slip through that 'we' should be aware of. I didn't see it being mentioned on WP:EL or on the project page. Han-Kwang (t) 10:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC) http://spam.afibfacts.com
 * Sites spammed

http://spam.afadvisor.org

http://spam.stopafib.org


 * Spammers

Nothing too much of a concern yet. MER-C 13:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe not these sites, but how many other "medical information sites" like that are there? Afibfacts and afadvisor have been sitting on that page for quite long without being noticed and I didn't suspect anything myself the first time I checked the links for spam. P.S. I wasn't aware that uncensored URLs on this page was a no-no. Why is that? Han-Kwang (t) 14:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.streetdanceuk.com
Adsense pub-8002134586276302
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 20:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.tibcoblogs.com http://spam.eventprocessing.wordpress.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 20:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

http://spam. ufomagazine.com
See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Aug redirect site
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 21:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * http://spam. ufomagazine.net
 * Spam sock accounts
 * Spam sock accounts

--Hu12 21:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.coinforum.com http://spam.coinresource.com
Adsense pub-7588386546164521
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 03:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Splogspot spam

 * Spam articles


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

Please blacklist. MER-C 13:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Still spamming. MER-C 12:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

✅ BL'd --Hu12 13:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Dog, health and dirt bike spam.....

 * (attached to howtomakeyourselflookbeautiful bog, but not found added to any articles yet)
 * Connected Commission Junction (a
 * (attached to howtomakeyourselflookbeautiful bog, but not found added to any articles yet)
 * Connected Commission Junction (a
 * (attached to howtomakeyourselflookbeautiful bog, but not found added to any articles yet)
 * Connected Commission Junction (a
 * (attached to howtomakeyourselflookbeautiful bog, but not found added to any articles yet)
 * Connected Commission Junction (a
 * (attached to howtomakeyourselflookbeautiful bog, but not found added to any articles yet)
 * Connected Commission Junction (a
 * Connected Commission Junction (a

Related through google adsense IDs:
 * Dog sites and Drknee use pub-2826299654579011 and "ad-host" (?does anyone know what this means?) pub-1556223355139109
 * Pregnancy site pub-2826299654579011 (on spammed pages) and pub-1434976855685284 (on front page of site)
 * acnevulgaris site pub-4307825614992624 and "host" pub-1556223355139109
 * selectdogbreeds site pub-4307825614992624 (no "host" number)
 * howtomakeyourselflookbeautiful pub-0982625967107508 host pub-1556223355139109
 * banspam pub-1616553409490635 host pub-1556223355139109
 * atbriders pub-1616553409490635 (no "host" number)

Editors adding these links:
 * (only one found so far from before August)
 * (only one found so far from before August)
 * (only one found so far from before August)
 * (only one found so far from before August)
 * (only one found so far from before August)
 * (only one found so far from before August)
 * (only one found so far from before August)
 * (only one found so far from before August)
 * (only one found so far from before August)
 * (only one found so far from before August)

I assume there are more sites and editors, but this is what I have so far.

-- SiobhanHansa 13:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed you are right, there are thousands of blogs with that particular adsense pub, including the inevitable splogs. Looking through a splog database found nothing. MER-C 06:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

bracesreview.com
Added by a seemingly single-purpose account today, to 4 articles. 

Might want to keep an eye on it... --SXT4$\color{Red} \oplus$ 17:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Havers and lasting-weight-loss.com
I'm really swamped with real world work today, but is disputing that this site is not an appropriate external link and another misguided editor is supporting him. The discussion is on User talk:Havers. Could someone try to explain why this sort of traffic-driving to a "free subscription eCourse" is not appropriate? GlassFET 14:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * has been adding links to lasting-weight-loss.com and disputes my analysis that linking to this site is spam. He has also received some bad advice and support from another editor. Discussion is at User talk:Havers where I wrote:
 * The reason it is spam is because the materials on the site are there solely to drive traffic to the main content of the site. The site's name is lasting-weight-loss.com, and all the menu items on the left are about weight loss. It has "Testimonials" and appears to be designed to get people to use the contact form to contract for "training" of some sort. In addition to this, each page has a form for "subscribing" to a course. This is traffic driving pure and simple and not a reliable source nor an appropriate external link. I will continue to remove links to this site whenever I find them, and if spamming for this site continues, get it added to the blacklist. If it's not your site, all find and good, but don't help drive traffic to "subscription" sites. Better information is available elsewhere.
 * However, he's already removed this post once claiming it to be "factually inaccurate". I don't really have time today to devote to discouraging him, so perhaps if he gets some other opinions he will begin to "get it." GlassFET 16:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.spywaredb.com
Couls someone please clean up after 220.255.87.205, I need to go to bed. thx ! CliffC 05:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Spammers
 * Vandalized page
 * Vandalized page a second time. -- A. B. (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Vandalized page
 * Vandalized page a second time. -- A. B. (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 12:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Why am I on a COI report?
See WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2007, Aug 26. I appear on there twice. I found it when the bot report suddenly appeared in Category:Current Opinion journals. For the background to this, see WP:ANI (or see the recent ANI archives), and Articles for deletion/Current Opinion in Immunology. Could I ask how the bot works and why it picked this up? Was my merging of possible spam articles (though with the potential to become good ones) what was picked up, or was it my creation of the category, or was it something else? Thanks. Carcharoth 17:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I also fixed the page with this edit to avoid the category tags being used. They now link instead. The bot appears to output piped category links, rather than the correct pre-colon (":") links. I'll drop the bot owner a note. Carcharoth 17:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing to worry about, it seems: User:COIBot: "COIBot records additions of URLs on the monitorlist, except when the user is whitelisted or when a user is already reported via the blacklist." Han-Kwang (t) 17:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed nothing to worry about. The mechanism is now such that links which have a big overlap with the user that is adding them are automatically monitored.  That sometimes results in good links being caught on the records due to accidental overlap.  I tend to remove those rules as soon as possible, but they sometimes stay there for some time.  Links on the monitor list are there just for our statistics, most (but certainly not all) of the links on the monitorlist are spammy, but these have to be evaluated (by a human editor!) before blacklisting (meta blacklist or user:AntiSpamBot), or the links are not suitable for blacklisting, but get spammed (e.g. someone with a conflict of interest is performing many additions of a good link).  I am working on the whitelisting of links, because some links should never be automatically picked up by COIBot.  Hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Drug spam
There seems to be quite a lot of commercial links used as references for the prices of drugs in some of the drug articles. Usually these sorts of links are spammed by spambots, but some of it is definitely more subtle spam campaigning by assorted IP addresses. Examples I've recently seen are:

Example spammers:

sites being spammed include, possibly:

Some of these may be legitimate, and most has been removed, but there's probably a whole load more. May be worth a further look. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you proxy check the spammer IPs? Last time we had a drug spam problem, half the IPs turned out to be proxies. MER-C 10:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

--Hu12 (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.environmentalleader.com
Adsense pub-7665967764149990
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 02:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

reacheverychild.com carfamily.wordpress.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 04:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Spamming related sites
Adsense pub-1022469755395395
 * http://spam.mandiryoga.googlepages.com
 * http://spam.depressionpill.googlepages.com
 * http://spam.vlsichipdesign.com
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

cross wiki --Hu12 09:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.kitchaloo.com
Adsense pub-6586650843826647
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 11:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

apmlas.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 12:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC) --Hu12 (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.poetryarchive.org

 * Spammers
 * (62 links, no other contributions!)

Has some remnant links, not sure whether we should remove them. MER-C 12:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

flowers-photos.eu
Adsense pub-8879998788993004
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

and de.  and de.  and  fr.  nl.  it.  simple.  and es. fr.  simple   de. 

cross wiki spammer--Hu12 12:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.gardenwildlife.co.uk

 * Spammers

WP:COI applies. MER-C 12:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Mail Tribune
Seems to be an in-house link campaign. One user already blocked for COI username. Please monitor:

Accounts

Note that there are plenty of legit references using the newspaper as a source. Though I have removed the links added by the above users, there may be other spammers.

Thanks. Katr67 21:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

List of summer camps
What's the general consensus on articles like this that end up turning into link farms? Personally, I am inclined to delete the links, but some of you may come across this sort of thing more often.Montco 00:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My opinion, is that, it's OK to have a link on the article for that particular camp, but, I'd view it as inappropriate, for the list to become a link-farm. Either the camp has an article, or, it does not, there is no need for a www link in the list of articles. Just my $0.02, however --SXT4$\color{Red} \oplus$ 01:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are two basic approaches: 1) turn all the external links into internal links, and 2) remove all the links without a Wikipedia article. Sometimes you should aim for the middle ground, based on which articles are likely to be created and kept. Lists can be useful, and some redlinks are often a good thing, but at the end of the day it's a list of encyclopaedia articles about summer camps, and not a list of summer camps. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Raised the issue on the Article's talkpage --SXT4$\color{Red} \oplus$ 01:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My approach is generally just to fry the external links and leave red links. I just wanted to check to make sure that there was not some special convention regarding the "list of ..." articles.  I am going to proceed.  Thanks. Montco 02:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work! :) --SXT4$\color{Red} \oplus$ 02:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

adsense spamming
Adsense pub-4012481313539348
 * http://spam.jerusalempedia.com
 * http://spam.theforexcurrencytrading.com
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 14:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.aboutheroes.com
Adsense pub-7576191339339864
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 15:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.aras.org

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 17:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

babyhold.com-related spam on Wikipedia and Wiktionary
The owner of babyholding.com, Babyhold Rep, protested the blacklisting (on meta) last month of his domain. In digging around, I found out that the spam was actually broader than initially reported. I've requested meta blacklisting and I'm recording the info here for the record. (This was probably not the outcome Babyhold Rep was seeking.)

Domains spammed:
 * www.babyhold.com
 * www.telavivguide.net
 * www.porto-guide.com
 * www.moolamusic.co.il (spammed on he.wikipedia, not this one)
 * www.porto-guide.com
 * www.moolamusic.co.il (spammed on he.wikipedia, not this one)
 * www.moolamusic.co.il (spammed on he.wikipedia, not this one)

Related domain:
 * http://www.market-er.com

Google AdSense IDs:
 * 2382028832344851
 * 7017472673405738

Sockpuppet accounts adding one or more of these links:
 * 1) *1 warning ignored
 * 2 warnings ignored
 * 4 warnings ignored
 * 1 warning ignored
 * Polite request ignored
 * 1 warning ignored
 * 4 warnings ignored
 * 1 warning ignored
 * Polite request ignored
 * 1 warning ignored
 * 1 warning ignored
 * Polite request ignored
 * 1 warning ignored
 * Polite request ignored
 * 1 warning ignored
 * Polite request ignored
 * 1 warning ignored
 * 1 warning ignored
 * 1 warning ignored
 * 1 warning ignored
 * 1 warning ignored
 * 1 warning ignored

Cross-wiki accounts:
 * 1) wikt:Special:Contributions/212.179.142.11
 * 2) wikt:Special:Contributions/80.178.255.30
 * 3) *1 warning ignored
 * 4) wikt:Special:Contributions/83.130.84.38
 * 5) wikt:Special:Contributions/TaliSaar
 * he:Special:Contributions/83.130.229.199
 * he:Special:Contributions/83.130.84.38
 * ja:Special:Contributions/Ai12345
 * yi:Special:Contributions/83.130.84.38
 * he:Special:Contributions/77.124.21.197

References: -- A. B. (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/07
 * first blacklisting request
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist (permanent link)
 * blacklist removal request
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist (permanent link)
 * second blacklisting request

Special:Contributions/63.172.100.11
I don't have time to go through them this morning, but seems to be adding a lot of links to a gardening site. -- SB_Johnny | PA! 09:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * quack quack:  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Adsense pub-7322124000836561 --Hu12 08:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * http://spam.perennialandrosegardening.net
 * http://spam.roseguy.net
 * http://spam.roseguy.net

Spamming of http://spam.hepatitisaustralia.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 01:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

old Spammer
Spam Article (deleted) GII Adsense pub-1333359665928869
 * Spamming of links

Adsense pub-6292042514317285
 * spam.gii.in
 * spam.seomeeting.com
 * spam.hansikamotwaniwow.com
 * spam.hansikamotwaniwow.com
 * spam.hansikamotwaniwow.com
 * spam.downloadheart.us
 * spam.amishaworld.com
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

Vandalism - Attempted deletion in archive Vandalism - Attempted another deletion in archive --Hu12 01:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

More domains
-- A. B. (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * www.aamnashariffwow.com
 * www.adultdirectory.cc
 * www.alessandraambrosiowow.com
 * www.alleybaggettwow.com
 * www.allfreesoftwares.com
 * www.allseasons.us
 * www.alysonmichalkawow.com
 * www.ambatchdotcomseocontest.us
 * www.amishaworld.com
 * www.amitbhawani.com
 * www.amitpatel.info
 * www.amrutapatkiwow.com
 * www.annabensonwow.com
 * www.ashleymassarowow.com
 * www.autumnreeserwow.com
 * www.ayeshaworld.com
 * www.bangalorewow.com
 * www.bibianajulianwow.com
 * www.biddingwebdirectory.com
 * www.bipasabasu.info
 * www.bloggerspoint.com
 * www.bollywoodnews.us
 * www.bridgetmarquardtwow.com
 * www.britneyworld.info
 * www.celebrityrealname.com
 * www.celebtalk.us
 * www.chennaiwow.com
 * www.chiranjeeviwow.com
 * www.classifiedswow.com
 * www.creepdirectory.com
 * www.cristinaaguilera.info
 * www.daniellelloydwow.com
 * www.deepalshaw.info
 * www.deepikapadukone.in
 * www.delhiwow.com
 * www.digitalworldsolutions.com
 * www.digitalworldsolutions.in
 * www.directorylover.com
 * www.earn123.info
 * www.elingrindemyrwow.com
 * www.emilydeschanelwow.com
 * www.emmawatsonworld.info
 * www.emranhashmiwow.com
 * www.ericadurancewow.com
 * www.evagreenworld.info
 * www.f1r.us
 * www.giselebundchenwow.com
 * www.giulianamarinowow.com
 * www.globaluniversities.info
 * www.globalwarming-awareness2007info.info
 * www.hansikamotwaniwow.com
 * www.haydenpanettierewow.com
 * www.hiifii.com
 * www.hiifiiwebhosting.com
 * www.hostboard.org
 * www.hostbrains.com
 * www.hotactresswallpapers.com
 * www.hotactresswallpapers.com
 * www.hyderabadforums.com
 * www.hyderabadwow.com
 * www.ileanadcruz.info
 * www.imageshosting.us
 * www.indiantelevisionnews.com
 * www.ishakopikar.info
 * www.jenniferworld.org
 * www.jennstergerwow.com
 * www.jiahkhanwow.com
 * www.kanganaranautwow.com
 * www.kareenaworld.com
 * www.karishmakotakwow.com
 * www.karisweetswow.com
 * www.katrinakaifworld.info
 * www.keeleyhazellwow.com
 * www.kendrawilkinsonwow.com
 * www.koenamitra.info
 * www.kunalkhemuwow.com
 * www.laceychabertwow.com
 * www.laetitiacastawow.com
 * www.laradatta.info
 * www.lindsaymoultonwow.com
 * www.malaikaarorakhan.info
 * www.mallikasherawat.us
 * www.mandymoorewow.com
 * www.megastarfamily.com
 * www.mercedesterrellwow.com
 * www.milakuniswow.com
 * www.minisshalambawow.com
 * www.mobilephoneworld.info
 * www.natashasuriwow.com
 * www.negarkhan.info
 * www.newspoint.us
 * www.nobledirectory.com
 * www.onebp.com
 * www.onlineclickjobs.com
 * www.parishiltonworld.info
 * www.playboyplaymates.us
 * www.preityzinta.info
 * www.qualitywebdirectory.com
 * www.rahul-dravid.info
 * www.rajnikantwow.com
 * www.rakhisawantwow.com
 * www.rhonamitrawow.com
 * www.rimisenwow.com
 * www.roselynsanchezwow.com
 * www.samanthamumbawow.com
 * www.sarapaxtonwow.com
 * www.seka.us
 * www.seohyd.com
 * www.seophotos.com
 * www.sherlynchoprawow.com
 * www.sluze.org
 * www.sofiavergarawow.com
 * www.sohaalikhan.info
 * www.souravgangulyworld.com
 * www.srivazrala.info client
 * www.tamarasky.info
 * www.tanishamukherjeewow.com
 * www.thebposervices.com
 * www.theseoworld.com
 * www.tollywoodtalk.info
 * www.top9webhostings.com
 * www.triciahelferwow.com
 * www.tulipjoshiwow.com
 * www.tussharkapoorwow.com
 * www.tyrabankswow.com
 * www.uditagoswamiwow.com
 * www.urdir.info
 * www.vidyamalvadewow.com
 * www.websitebidding.com
 * www.willahollandwow.com
 * www.wordpresswow.com
 * www.worldranking.info
 * www.worldranking.info
 * www.worldsbiggestdirectory.com
 * www.wowbollywood.com
 * www.wowgreetingcards.com
 * www.wowhollywood.net
 * www.wowtollywood.com
 * www.yokomatsuganewow.com
 * www.zooeydeschanelwow.com
 * www.zuleykariverawow.com
 * chirulife.blogspot.com
 * priyamanidoll.blogspot.com
 * www.babyscare.info
 * www.bestreceipes.info
 * www.bugtest.info
 * www.celebtalk.info
 * www.chinna.info
 * www.funecards.info
 * www.globaluniversities.info
 * www.greatstories.info
 * www.hifilive.com
 * www.hitechclassifieds.com
 * www.hyderabadtoday.info
 * www.interviewquestion.us
 * www.jokerdir.info
 * www.kidzkingdom.info
 * www.kingofdir.info
 * www.letzgoonline.com
 * www.namithakapoor.info
 * www.nayantarasahgal.info
 * www.qualitywebdirectory.com
 * www.seekjava.info
 * www.technicalinterview.info
 * www.templetown.info
 * www.tollywoodnews.info
 * www.tourguideworld.info
 * www.trishakrishnanwow.info
 * www.worldsportspoint.info
 * www.wowindianfilms.info
 * www.wowvidyabalan.info
 * www.yogaforpeople.info
 * www.minisshalambawow.com
 * www.mobilephoneworld.info
 * www.natashasuriwow.com
 * www.negarkhan.info
 * www.newspoint.us
 * www.nobledirectory.com
 * www.onebp.com
 * www.onlineclickjobs.com
 * www.parishiltonworld.info
 * www.playboyplaymates.us
 * www.preityzinta.info
 * www.qualitywebdirectory.com
 * www.rahul-dravid.info
 * www.rajnikantwow.com
 * www.rakhisawantwow.com
 * www.rhonamitrawow.com
 * www.rimisenwow.com
 * www.roselynsanchezwow.com
 * www.samanthamumbawow.com
 * www.sarapaxtonwow.com
 * www.seka.us
 * www.seohyd.com
 * www.seophotos.com
 * www.sherlynchoprawow.com
 * www.sluze.org
 * www.sofiavergarawow.com
 * www.sohaalikhan.info
 * www.souravgangulyworld.com
 * www.srivazrala.info client
 * www.tamarasky.info
 * www.tanishamukherjeewow.com
 * www.thebposervices.com
 * www.theseoworld.com
 * www.tollywoodtalk.info
 * www.top9webhostings.com
 * www.triciahelferwow.com
 * www.tulipjoshiwow.com
 * www.tussharkapoorwow.com
 * www.tyrabankswow.com
 * www.uditagoswamiwow.com
 * www.urdir.info
 * www.vidyamalvadewow.com
 * www.websitebidding.com
 * www.willahollandwow.com
 * www.wordpresswow.com
 * www.worldranking.info
 * www.worldranking.info
 * www.worldsbiggestdirectory.com
 * www.wowbollywood.com
 * www.wowgreetingcards.com
 * www.wowhollywood.net
 * www.wowtollywood.com
 * www.yokomatsuganewow.com
 * www.zooeydeschanelwow.com
 * www.zuleykariverawow.com
 * chirulife.blogspot.com
 * priyamanidoll.blogspot.com
 * www.babyscare.info
 * www.bestreceipes.info
 * www.bugtest.info
 * www.celebtalk.info
 * www.chinna.info
 * www.funecards.info
 * www.globaluniversities.info
 * www.greatstories.info
 * www.hifilive.com
 * www.hitechclassifieds.com
 * www.hyderabadtoday.info
 * www.interviewquestion.us
 * www.jokerdir.info
 * www.kidzkingdom.info
 * www.kingofdir.info
 * www.letzgoonline.com
 * www.namithakapoor.info
 * www.nayantarasahgal.info
 * www.qualitywebdirectory.com
 * www.seekjava.info
 * www.technicalinterview.info
 * www.templetown.info
 * www.tollywoodnews.info
 * www.tourguideworld.info
 * www.trishakrishnanwow.info
 * www.worldsportspoint.info
 * www.wowindianfilms.info
 * www.wowvidyabalan.info
 * www.yogaforpeople.info
 * www.willahollandwow.com
 * www.wordpresswow.com
 * www.worldranking.info
 * www.worldranking.info
 * www.worldsbiggestdirectory.com
 * www.wowbollywood.com
 * www.wowgreetingcards.com
 * www.wowhollywood.net
 * www.wowtollywood.com
 * www.yokomatsuganewow.com
 * www.zooeydeschanelwow.com
 * www.zuleykariverawow.com
 * chirulife.blogspot.com
 * priyamanidoll.blogspot.com
 * www.babyscare.info
 * www.bestreceipes.info
 * www.bugtest.info
 * www.celebtalk.info
 * www.chinna.info
 * www.funecards.info
 * www.globaluniversities.info
 * www.greatstories.info
 * www.hifilive.com
 * www.hitechclassifieds.com
 * www.hyderabadtoday.info
 * www.interviewquestion.us
 * www.jokerdir.info
 * www.kidzkingdom.info
 * www.kingofdir.info
 * www.letzgoonline.com
 * www.namithakapoor.info
 * www.nayantarasahgal.info
 * www.qualitywebdirectory.com
 * www.seekjava.info
 * www.technicalinterview.info
 * www.templetown.info
 * www.tollywoodnews.info
 * www.tourguideworld.info
 * www.trishakrishnanwow.info
 * www.worldsportspoint.info
 * www.wowindianfilms.info
 * www.wowvidyabalan.info
 * www.yogaforpeople.info
 * www.hifilive.com
 * www.hitechclassifieds.com
 * www.hyderabadtoday.info
 * www.interviewquestion.us
 * www.jokerdir.info
 * www.kidzkingdom.info
 * www.kingofdir.info
 * www.letzgoonline.com
 * www.namithakapoor.info
 * www.nayantarasahgal.info
 * www.qualitywebdirectory.com
 * www.seekjava.info
 * www.technicalinterview.info
 * www.templetown.info
 * www.tollywoodnews.info
 * www.tourguideworld.info
 * www.trishakrishnanwow.info
 * www.worldsportspoint.info
 * www.wowindianfilms.info
 * www.wowvidyabalan.info
 * www.yogaforpeople.info
 * www.qualitywebdirectory.com
 * www.seekjava.info
 * www.technicalinterview.info
 * www.templetown.info
 * www.tollywoodnews.info
 * www.tourguideworld.info
 * www.trishakrishnanwow.info
 * www.worldsportspoint.info
 * www.wowindianfilms.info
 * www.wowvidyabalan.info
 * www.yogaforpeople.info
 * www.trishakrishnanwow.info
 * www.worldsportspoint.info
 * www.wowindianfilms.info
 * www.wowvidyabalan.info
 * www.yogaforpeople.info
 * www.wowindianfilms.info
 * www.wowvidyabalan.info
 * www.yogaforpeople.info
 * www.yogaforpeople.info
 * www.yogaforpeople.info

Why does "RFC" followed by a number create a link?
Why does this text create a link, RFC 2544? --Ronz 04:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The why is not too difficult, it is part of the software, like the automagic of ISBN. My trouble is, why do I get an error that the page is not available?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actimind, Inc.
Actitime ActiTIME Articles for deletion/ActiTIME


 * http://spam.actitime.com


 * related


 * http://spam.actimind.com
 * http://spam.actiwate.com
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

descr: Actimind, Inc. descr: Actimind, Inc. descr: Actimind, Inc. --Hu12 08:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ru:Special:Contributions/Alyadem
 * Actitime
 * ActiTIME
 * ActiTIME

http://spam.exposeromney.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 12:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

interactive-resume.com
article (deleted) Title opinion Adsense pub-9332318760222881 Adsense pub-2753288745996059


 * http://spam.interactive-resume.com
 * http://spam.agreementsetc.com
 * http://spam.firstappeal.com
 * http://spam.spiralhouse.co.uk
 * Accounts
 * http://spam.spiralhouse.co.uk
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 17:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.gemzies.com



 * Account:

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk  17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (one edit, link addition). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.tourdates.co.uk

 * Spammers

See WP:ANI. MER-C 09:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * added an IP.--Hu12 09:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

boxing-memorabilia.com and famousmuslims.com

 * http://spam.famousmuslims.com


 * Spammers

MER-C 12:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The boxing links were widely cross-wiki spammed. I noticed the boxing spam a while back when I was investigating another big, unrelated spam operation ( languedoc-france.info) that used the same shared corporate IP (cross-wiki edit history for 168.224.1.14) . I noticed it was cross-wiki, but I was so pre-occupied with the langue-doc.info cleanup I forgot about this one.


 * The same boxing spammer also added links to ezinearticles.com pages with his links on them. (Ezinearticles.com is already blacklisted at meta).


 * Sample boxing spam edits:
 * fr:Special:Contributions/213.224.39.186
 * pl:Special:Contributions/213.224.39.186
 * sv:Special:Contributions/213.224.39.186
 * ja:Special:Contributions/86.141.7.245
 * en:Special:Contributions/86.141.7.245
 * q:Special:Contributions/86.141.7.245
 * it:Special:Contributions/86.141.7.245
 * ja:Special:Contributions/86.141.7.245
 * pt:Special:Contributions/86.141.7.245
 * nl:Speciaal:Bijdragen/168.224.1.14 (shared IP)


 * Linksearches:
 * da:Special:Linksearch/*.boxing-memorabilia.com
 * de:Special:Linksearch/*.boxing-memorabilia.com
 * en:Special:Linksearch/*.boxing-memorabilia.com
 * es:Special:Linksearch/*.boxing-memorabilia.com
 * fi:Special:Linksearch/*.boxing-memorabilia.com
 * fr:Special:Linksearch/*.boxing-memorabilia.com
 * hu:Special:Linksearch/*.boxing-memorabilia.com
 * id:Special:Linksearch/*.boxing-memorabilia.com
 * it:Special:Linksearch/*.boxing-memorabilia.com
 * ja:Special:Linksearch/*.boxing-memorabilia.com
 * ms:Special:Linksearch/*.boxing-memorabilia.com
 * nl:Special:Linksearch/*.boxing-memorabilia.com
 * pl:Special:Linksearch/*.boxing-memorabilia.com
 * pt:Special:Linksearch/*.boxing-memorabilia.com
 * sq:Special:Linksearch/*.boxing-memorabilia.com
 * sv:Special:Linksearch/*.boxing-memorabilia.com
 * zh:Special:Linksearch/*.boxing-memorabilia.com


 * I think the boxing-memorabilia.com stuff should go to meta:Talk:Spam blacklist for blacklisting on meta.


 * I don't know anything about the famousmuslims.com links but there appear to be a number of these links on other wikis. -- A. B. (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Linking to Flickr search results?
I've noticed this a lot recently, external links to search results with specific tags. Is there a guideline on these? This seems similar to linking to a Google image search, although usually Flickr results are more specific than Google. 172.207.92.192 18:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Our external links guidelines state put 10. Links to search engine and aggregated results pages under the normally to be avoided header. So generally these are not a good idea.  You can get more input on this at the external links guidelines talk page.  -- SiobhanHansa 17:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

conventions.net
A site currently announcing its imminent launch on September 1st. Spammed since at least June.

Editors adding link:

Time to blacklist?

-- SiobhanHansa 04:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

✅ the long term nature of this is concerning--Hu12 14:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

reincarnation of visaforu.com spam
visaforu.com is blacklisted on meta - so they've switched to:
 * Spamsocks:
 * Spamsocks:

--Versageek 14:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Added it to the local BL for now, if i recall they have in the past used redirects and "iframed" from various domains.--Hu12 14:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * COIBot is now watching all links with the text 'visaforu' in it, they should now be visible in the link reports. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Now blacklisted at Meta -- Herby talk thyme 14:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.petitionspot.com


Quite a few links, most likely needs a closer review--Hu12 14:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Utah anon IP loves vandalism and links
Could somebody look into this range of IP addresses? 67.171.115.0-255 appears to be someone from Utah, works at Albertson's (maybe), and loves putting a lot of unnecessary content into Wikipedia. --Dude Manchap 18:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

rawartint.com and girafa.com spam on Wikipedia
Spam domains:

Accounts:
 * This spam IP is registered to girafa.com
 * This spam IP is registered to girafa.com

Cross-wiki spam: Aside from software and art gallery articles in different languages, this spam campaign also hit articles about giraffes in different Wikipedias with spam links to Girafa.com Inc, a small software company.
 * wikt:Special:Contributions/213.8.83.40
 * he:Special:Contributions/213.8.83.40
 * he:Special:Contributions/84.228.228.247
 * oc:Special:Contributions/213.8.83.40
 * pl:Special:Contributions/213.8.83.40
 * pt:Special:Contributions/213.8.83.40
 * ca:Special:Contributions/213.8.83.40
 * de:Special:Contributions/213.8.83.40

Spam articles:
 * Raw art gallery
 * Raw Art Gallery
 * Girafa

Disputatious discussions
 * Articles for deletion/Girafa
 * Articles for deletion/Girafa 2
 * Wikiquette alerts/Archive/2006
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive63
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive63
 * Talk:Thumbshot

Meta blacklisting request: -- A. B. (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist (permanent link)

nbjmp.com
From the domaintools search - they describe themselves as "a technology used to track online advertising campaigns for our partners. It is owned by NeverblueAds, an affiliate network."
 * Spamsocks:

--Versageek 03:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Two more.. and another waiting for me to revert it!!

I've blacklisted on shadowbot, but if someone could add this to the local MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist that would be wonderful! I have also reported nbjmp.com account #8617 (based on the URL used to spam) to nbjmp.com, so hopefully he'll have his account frozen and his membership canceled. and..
 * also spammed Amazon.com affiliate links, I have reported that affiliate account to Amazon.com. --Versageek 04:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's also and, and I've also seen a few others. The site is now blacklisted locally. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.splashacademy.com http://spam.miamiwatersportscenter.com

 * Spammers
 * fr:Special:Contributions/81.62.109.62
 * es:Special:Contributions/81.62.109.62
 * es:Special:Contributions/81.62.109.62

MER-C 11:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

External links bot?
Were there ever talk here about a bot monitoring external links? If an external links section is tagged e.g., The bot could monitor and maybe assemble added links somewhere. -- Kl4m  Talk Contrib 20:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In principle User:COIBot could do such things, were it not that the template gets substituted so it is difficult for COIBot to see if a page has that template (except for parsing all pages where links get added to, which would impose a high strain on the bandwidth of the computer COIBot is running on; I tried something similar earlier, and the computer seemed to have problems coping with that). If these articles could be put into a category (or their talkpages), it would be easier to parse.  The bot could then just make a list of the pages in the category (refresh that every say 5 minutes), and test for each page reported by our linkwatchers if they are in the category or not, and then make the bot report all added links.  Any other thoughts someone?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.midnightmarketingonline.com http://spam.salestimes3.com

 * Spammers

See WP:ANI. MER-C 02:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.sciencemadefun.org.uk

 * Spammers

MER-C 12:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

health topics spam

 * Spamsocks:
 * Spamsocks:
 * Spamsocks:
 * Spamsocks:
 * Spamsocks:

--Versageek 15:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

vandalspam
This domain is being used to replace the official domains on high profile articles like Google and Flickr. Apparently Linkwatcher isn't picking it up.
 * Spamsocks:
 * Spamsocks:

--Versageek 16:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

startingiseasy.com
Now the cross-wiki linkwatchers are starting to become stable, the first notices of active cross wiki spamming are visible.



Accounts:
 * nl:special:contributions/84.27.107.217
 * en:special:contributions/84.27.107.217
 * ru:special:contributions/84.27.107.217
 * pl:special:contributions/84.27.107.217
 * pt:special:contributions/84.27.107.217
 * it:special:contributions/84.27.107.217
 * fr:special:contributions/84.27.107.217
 * fi:special:contributions/84.27.107.217
 * es:special:contributions/84.27.107.217
 * de:special:contributions/84.27.107.217

It is almost a shame the linkwatcher is not yet working on all wikis ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.noooxml.org
Noooxml
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 10:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * added one--Hu12 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well you can add me too, because I just re-added this site to OOXML, and as someone who didn't know anything about ooxml until a few weeks ago, and as a spam fighter, I think it belongs there as an external link. Han-Kwang (t) 16:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am actually not sure if these two sections do belong on wikipedia at all. After all, we are not a soapbox.  A factual section in the text (which I think is there) should be more than enough.  And if noooxml.org is a key link, then it could be used as reference.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatly, is not appropriate as it advertises a pettition rather than a resource about the subject. Per WP:EL and as Dirk Beetstra points out, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a soapbox for Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Including Opinion pieces and Advertising --Hu12 17:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have moved two external links sections on Office Open XML to the talkpage, where some editors were edit warring over the inclusion or not of this link. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Crackpot, racist, and scurilous - NoOOXML meets Wikipedia by pieterh 17 Sep 2007, 16:14 -0-400 --Hu12 (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Greenfacts.org
Hi, please keep an eye out for spam by GreenFacts, a "not-for-profit" that is systematically spamming Wikipedia; where they add their links to wikipedia and usually attach them to the link to an NGO report and label the link to their site as a summary of the report. I have removed over 50 links; I noticed them as this IP was updating them Thanks. --Peta 07:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * en:special:contributions/87.244.151.94
 * The bot is keeping an eye out. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The bot is keeping an eye out. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.calleridspoofing.info
Added over and over again to pages about spoofing.



Users:

--Dirk Beetstra T C 09:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.sleepassociation.org
Advert Sleep association Advert American Sleep Association
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 15:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * AfD:
 * Articles for deletion/American Sleep Association
 * -- A. B. (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.thenisai.com
Songs and movies with india(n) entertainment (a portal). Much advertisement. users: Seems to be used as a good site as well, though this was a case of plain spamming. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Splendid-gowns.com
Were spamming links directly to their online store. More recently trying to spam an article (that is mind numbingly dull) on dress etiquette. Still spam.


 * (spamming of store in 2006)
 * (spamming of store in 2006)
 * (recent spamming of article)
 * (recent spamming of article)
 * (recent spamming of article)
 * (recent spamming of article)
 * (recent spamming of article)

Will recommend for local blacklisting. -- SiobhanHansa 10:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

✅ its been added--Hu12 13:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Spamming of http://webswell.com
Article Webswell deleted Article Webswell Connect
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 14:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

hedgehogs
To Hedgehog and others. Users:
 * --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry if I did something that caused an issue. It would have been nice to get an email explaining 'why' listing Hedgehog World where it would seemingly belong as an added resource. There are some broken links there too - hedgehog breeders alliance is a good example. Can someone explain exactly why world isn't allowed to be listed, and is considered spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.191.133 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reaction. I am afraid your link is not allowed because of our guideline on external links.  Please understand that we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm.  You appear to be pushing the link, although I am not sure, you may also want to review our conflict of interest guideline.  As you do appear to have some knowledge on hedgehogs (and maybe on similar hedge-row dwellers), may I ask you to contribute content, and maybe your site (or other sites) can be used as a reference (see our reliable sources guideline and our citation guideline).  Happy editing.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 22:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

energ.co.uk

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 23:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet another fake sex symbol "official site"

 * Account:
 * Account:

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk  03:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to be able to understand this stuff - maybe someone can help me. This IP has added the site once to the article which is the subject of the website.  While it may not be an appropriate link (and I'm not judging it one way or the other), is this really considered reportable as part of this project? I don't see any other vandalism from this IP either. Please help me with this. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 11:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason I reported is that I'm constantly seeing links to these sites on the articles for porn stars, models, actresses, etc. Usually they're purported to be the person's "official site". They always consist of the person's name, and usually have a .org, .net, or .biz extension. The sites have all have a similar look and contain a bunch of copyvio photos along with Google ads. The links always seemed to be added by IPs, and each IP will only add, at most, 2 or 3 of these links before apparently moving on to another IP. I'm not sure if there's a way to find out who's hosting these sites or adding the links, but there's definitely a pattern here. Videmus Omnia Talk  12:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. Can you post more examples, then?  Maybe that will help the experts get a better picture of it... -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been adding them here as I run across them - maybe I made an incorrect assumption, but I thought it was a problem of which our spam experts were aware. A recent example I added here was jaydenjames.net...don't remember any others off the top of my head. Videmus Omnia Talk  13:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok - might be an idea to keep them together in one section, then - that way it's going to be easier to look for commonalities. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 13:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would, but this page is normally archived too quickly for that. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The links in the left column at www.joleneblalock.biz led me to 31 other domains. The "Free Nude Cams" link redirects to http://peekshows.com/?wmcode=MPI This is probably not the spammer's site; instead he's getting a referral commission based on the "wmcode=MPI" in the URL.


 * Here's the list of other domains; all are registered to Mancuso Programming Inc. and the Google AdSense number is 3793717116673284 -- see if any of these look familiar:
 * 1. http://anneheche.biz
 * 2. http://brooklyndecker.org
 * 3. http://camillabelle.org
 * 4. http://carlagallo.net
 * 5. http://carlagugino.biz
 * 6. http://carly-schroeder.com
 * 7. http://chloesevigny.biz
 * 8. http://emilyblunt.biz
 * 9. http://evamendes.biz
 * 10. http://grace-park.com
 * 11. http://heathergraham.biz
 * 12. http://islafisher.biz
 * 13. http://jalba.biz
 * 14. http://katherineheigl.biz
 * 15. http://katie-rees.net
 * 16. http://kerirussell.biz
 * 17. http://lauraprepon.biz
 * 18. http://leeleesobieski.org
 * 19. http://llohan.net
 * 20. http://miasara.net
 * 21. http://michelleryan.biz
 * 22. http://minniedriver.org
 * 23. http://naomiwatts.biz
 * 24. http://rosariodawson.biz
 * 25. http://shawneesmith.org
 * 26. http://shayek.org
 * 27. http://teripolo.net
 * 28. http://thorabirch.biz
 * 29. http://triciahelfer.biz
 * 30. http://vanessa-ferlito.com
 * 16. http://kerirussell.biz
 * 17. http://lauraprepon.biz
 * 18. http://leeleesobieski.org
 * 19. http://llohan.net
 * 20. http://miasara.net
 * 21. http://michelleryan.biz
 * 22. http://minniedriver.org
 * 23. http://naomiwatts.biz
 * 24. http://rosariodawson.biz
 * 25. http://shawneesmith.org
 * 26. http://shayek.org
 * 27. http://teripolo.net
 * 28. http://thorabirch.biz
 * 29. http://triciahelfer.biz
 * 30. http://vanessa-ferlito.com
 * 24. http://rosariodawson.biz
 * 25. http://shawneesmith.org
 * 26. http://shayek.org
 * 27. http://teripolo.net
 * 28. http://thorabirch.biz
 * 29. http://triciahelfer.biz
 * 30. http://vanessa-ferlito.com
 * 27. http://teripolo.net
 * 28. http://thorabirch.biz
 * 29. http://triciahelfer.biz
 * 30. http://vanessa-ferlito.com
 * 29. http://triciahelfer.biz
 * 30. http://vanessa-ferlito.com
 * 30. http://vanessa-ferlito.com


 * Clicking links on each of those pages pulled up these additional sites with similar layouts and the same Adsense number:
 * 1. http://alexisbarbara.net
 * 2. http://alicia-witt.net
 * 3. http://amanda-swisten.com
 * 4. http://chandrawest.org
 * 5. http://chylerleigh.org
 * 6. http://danicamckellar.net/
 * 7. http://elenaanaya.org
 * 8. http://heathermatarazzo.net
 * 9. http://kirstenstorms.net
 * 10. http://lindapark.org
 * 11. http://natashalyonne.net
 * 12. http://olivia-wilde.net
 * 13. http://rachel-specter.com
 * 14. http://robintunney.org
 * 15. http://rosablasi.org
 * 16. http://sunny-mabrey.com
 * 9. http://kirstenstorms.net
 * 10. http://lindapark.org
 * 11. http://natashalyonne.net
 * 12. http://olivia-wilde.net
 * 13. http://rachel-specter.com
 * 14. http://robintunney.org
 * 15. http://rosablasi.org
 * 16. http://sunny-mabrey.com
 * 13. http://rachel-specter.com
 * 14. http://robintunney.org
 * 15. http://rosablasi.org
 * 16. http://sunny-mabrey.com
 * 15. http://rosablasi.org
 * 16. http://sunny-mabrey.com
 * 16. http://sunny-mabrey.com


 * Further digging around turned up some other Mancuso domains:
 * 1. http://getyourwebsite.biz
 * 2. http://www.davidmancuso.com
 * 3. http://www.mancusoprogramming.com
 * 4. http://www.passitonlv.com
 * 5. http://www.cubsfans.com
 * 4. http://www.passitonlv.com
 * 5. http://www.cubsfans.com
 * 5. http://www.cubsfans.com
 * 5. http://www.cubsfans.com


 * From the domain registration dates (accessed via the "Domain Tools" links), it appears that Mancuso Programming is registering multiple new sites each month.
 * I hope this helps. -- A. B. (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like you unearthed the nest of sites for "respectable" models and actresses - there's another series of sites for pornstars (with more explicit pictures, but almost identical page design) Is there anything we can do besides possibly blacklist the individual sites as they pop up? Videmus Omnia Talk  01:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, you can probably find the other sites by doing what I did -- just go to the porn star pages and click on the links for other stars. (On the joleneblalock.biz site, for instance, the Lindsey Lohan button is linked to http://www.joleneblalock.biz/external1.html but that immediately redirects to http://llohan.net) These redirect links will take you to the other domains. Repeat the process for each new site you see to generate a list of suspected spam domains.


 * Then confirm that they are all owned by the spammer:check if they have similar registrations (you can use Domain Tools) or share the same AdSense IDs.


 * If the spammer has been warned several times, then, given the pattern you describe, I suggest preemptively blacklisting all his domains, not just the ones we know to have been spammed. Otherwise I'd make sure he's warned. If you don't think he's seeing the warnings because he's always using a new IP, then you can always leave a note and a link in your edit summaries when you remove his links. If he still never sees your warnings (because he always uses a new IP and doesn't know to check page histories), at some point we should probably still blacklist his domains to protect Wikipedia.


 * That's my two cents; others may have better ideas. -- A. B. (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.MedicalLightAssociation.com
Accounts:
 * www.californiafigs.com - Only one contribution of this link, from 75.62.232.106 as his first edit, so no evidence it's anything but a good faith edit
 * www.californiafigs.com - Only one contribution of this link, from 75.62.232.106 as his first edit, so no evidence it's anything but a good faith edit
 * 44 edits total from 05:55, 31 August 2007 through 07:27, 31 August 2007 adding the link to some 30 articles. Just added external links except on Glossary of alternative medicine where he added unsourced information with the link, and on List of people in alternative medicine where he added what looks to be a coi.
 * 9 edits total from 08:10, 31 August 2007 to 18:36, 31 August 2007. He stopped spamming after his 08:20 edit and started seeking help on talk pages.  His first edit to a non-deleted article was to Alternative medicine which had been spammed by 75.62.232.106 less than 2 hours earlier.  He restored his link on this page again 8 minutes later, after receiving a warning.  The 4 other article he spammed had also been spammed by 75.62.232.106.


 * Mdebow has promised he will no longer spam the site. It's unclear if Mdebow was asked about his sockpuppetry. --Ronz 00:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The link is broken.  Majorly  (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I cannot tell how this is spam. Explain?  Majorly  (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll note that many, but not all, of the reports above use the format of http://spam.SITENAME It's to prevent adding an actual link to the site to wikipedia.
 * This is a pretty minimal report, as the spamming is self evident. I can add information though to make it clearer in this case. --Ronz 01:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Explain?  Majorly  (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just added a couple sentences summarizing 75.62.232.106's edits above. I've done the same for Mdebow too. --Ronz 01:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

How this is spam? The accounts do link-additions only, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm. The links are to the domain only, not to pages that provide more information on the subject (directly linked, see the external links guideline. Also, Matt DeBow has a conflict of interest (and the edit pattern shows that he may very well have used the IP).  And why link to this organisation in the external links, and not to all the others that may be appropriate?  All reasons that these link additions are more to tunnel people to the organisation (spam), than improving the wikipedia.  Hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.adultdvdtalk.com



 * Account

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk  16:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.bestmootcourtprograms.com
Adsense pub-6408601581129020 Article Best Moot Court Programs Twice deleted
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 13:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This situation was brought up at Editor_assistance/Requests, after some investigation, there appears to be a pattern. Perhaps this is the appropriate forum for discussion.--Hu12 13:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Moot court is the only thing I know about. It certainly beats the kneejerk edits that have been going on so far in the moot court article. I have no problem with bestmootcourtprograms.com being deleted for whatever reason. I do care that the "whatever reason" is applied consistently within the moot court article. For example, one person deleted bestmootcourtprograms.com mentioning something about it being an advertiser. At the same time, however, he left an external link to a moot court competition, which no doubt charges a fee to competition participants. When I brought the discrepency in application of so-called standards, he deleted it. But he has still left numerous references to moot court competitions under the "see also" section of the "moot court" article. If advertisers must be deleted, then these references must be deleted (given the probability that these articles document competitions charging a fee).

If the inquiry turns on whether or not the advertiser is notable, I give kudos to the deleter who is backing out since the topic is not of interest. Those in the moot court world know that, for better or worse, bestmootcourtprograms.com is notable - in a "moot court" world that rarely sees anything notable. The site simply adds up top finishes at large moot court competitions. (Competition A has 24 teams competing. Team 62 wins Competition A. Because Team 62 has beat out 23 teams to win Competition A, its program (its law school) receives 23 points. This information is posted beneath each program's rank so that programs can double-check each other's rank. The competition name is also listed. The programs can go to the competition's web site, or contact the competition administrator, to verify the top finishes at that competition. There is absolutely no profit incentive for posting this info, but bestmootcourtprograms.com does it anyway. I can attest to the fact that the site administrator has received not a single penny of compensation from any program (or anyone at all) - quite unlike the moot court competitions currently touted in the "moot court" article.

The web site administrator has posted the methodology. He is uniquely situated to defend it. Though he won Regional Best Brief at the American Bar Association's National Appellate Advocacy Competition, he does not count best brief awards. Though his alma mater (Chicago-Kent) currently boasts the top advocate at the mega-competition Pace Environmental, he does not include best advocate awards. Though he finished Final Four out of 176 teams at ABA NAAC, he does not make top finishes at mega-competitions dispositive of program rank.

This is the first ever ranking of American law schools in the moot court world. Two law schools have already cited to their rank. Bestmootcourtprograms.com was cited as a footnote authority in the UC Hastings article (by someone other than Jimdugan). Because the first ever ranking only incorporates top finishes at competitions with 24 or more teams, programs will think twice about sending teams to smaller competitions. Thus, it is a change-the-game type of "advertiser." Not only should it be added to the "moot court" article in the main. It should be protected so it can't be deleted by every administrator who admittedly has not interest, or every moot court program director who is upset that the program is not ranked higher.

I'm happy this is going through the proper channels. Jimdugan 17:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Currently, under external links (or whatever) of the moot court article, there is a reference to a First Amendment moot court competition. Nearly all moot court competitions charge fees. Why is this allowed to remain while bestmootcourtprograms.com, which (for no fee) adds up finishes (winner/finalist/semifinalists) across large moot court competitions, has been systematically deleted by the powers that be.

However, not a single one of us should delete the First Amendment MCC unless he/she is also prepared to delete every article referenced under the "see also" section of the "moot court" article. Each of these is a moot court competition (or proxy therefor, i.e. alumni association thereof), and nearly all moot court competitions charge fees. From what I've learned of wikipedia's deletion practices of articles such as "best moot court programs," articles regarding moot court competitions should be likewise deleted.

I understand now that the proper place for referencing the notable bestmootcourtprograms.com may be under external links (moot court article) under the link name "Best Moot Court Programs (United States". People no doubt want to check out how American law schools stack up when facing each other.  However, under see also and external links, all referenced to moot court competitions should be deleted.  The articles should be as well.

However, if these competition articles are not deleted because someone decides they are consistent with wikipedia's preference for notability and prohibition of advertising, then that decisions-maker should think very seriously about reinstating "best moot court programs" as an article as well.Jimdugan 12:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to review "What about ...". --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks = it doesn't speak to my allegations that the "moot court" article is being "run" by those with a eurocentric view of moot court. Also, I'm beginning to see that wikipedia runs the risk of having those with a firm grasp on wikipedia rules -- and with only a cursory understanding of the topic -- beat-out topical experts who possess only the desire to correct a skewed article, and have no interest in editing their way to "wikipedia administrator" status.Jimdugan 12:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Jim, you were reported here because you were pushing your link, similar as two IPs. I understand that you are not happy with the current status of the articles, but here is not the place to discuss that.  Here we discuss why your link additions might not be appropriate.  The argument that the articles now contain links which are not appropriate is not an argument that allows you to add (push?) your link.
 * If you strongly believe that the article as such is not neutral at this moment, then I would suggest that you discuss on the talkpages (I see you already do that), and maybe consider filing a case on the conflict of interest noticeboard (for conflicts of interest), or here, if other people are similarly adding/pushing links which are questionable under the spam guideline or the external links guideline). I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * whether my link is appropriate = Okay. On this particular page, I'll try to limit my arguments to whether or not my link is appropriate.  I don't need bestmootcourtprograms.com to be an article.  I do think it is appropriate as an external link.  Someone reading about moot court would like to know more about how American moot court programs stack up against one another.  They click on "Best Moot Court Programs (United States)" and are taken to bestmootcourtprograms.com.  I don't mind continuously adding this link.  Currently, however, I seem to have the status of a spammer on wikipedia.  I would like a decision to be made about whether or not I am a spammer.  If the decision-maker decides in my favor, though, I would like not to again be added to the spam list (and have to face this ordeal anew) by every moot court director who is upset that they don't rank in the top five at bestmootcourtprograms.com.  There are probably hundreds of American moot court programs.  Currently, about 60 have performed well enough this year to be  ranked on my site.  That means that every two-bit moot court program director will be able to report me as spam - that is, unless wikipedia makes a decision in my favor and prevents others from designating me "spammer."Jimdugan 13:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As you appear to be an expert in the field, and you apparently feel that Wikipedia (just as a side remark, it is not the American wikipedia, though that does not exclude that sections address certain countries) does not cover the subject appropriately, then it is better to incorporate that information in the wikipedia. When then certain information can be referenced on the site, adding that site as a reference will not be a problem.  As to adding it as an external link, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm.  External links are subject to our external links guideline, and I have the feeling that this link may fail these criteria.  Hope this explains, and if you have further questions, don't hesitate to contact me.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.aaa.si.edu
Username indicates conflict of interest. There may be other spammers. However this link can also be used as a legitimate ref/EL, such as the one I added, rather sloppily, at John B. Yeon.




 * Accounts

Katr67 14:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have invited the user stop, and to join this discussion. More information here (should we move this into an own page somewhere, it keeps getting archived, even if it is still a point of discussion).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, he won't be Joining for 24 hours. I blocked him. Seems this is WP:SPA spam acount.--Hu12 15:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm curious why this user got blocked so fast, when other librarians and archivists haven't been blocked at all--is it because of the obvious COI? Katr67 16:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 116 links, 77 today alone. This is an encyclopedia, not a link farm--Hu12 16:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree about the link farm thing, don't worry. I guess this one has been a bit more prolific than the others referenced in previous discussions. Katr67 17:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If I might say something on his behalf - is adding useful documentation and vital information from the Archives of American Art. The AAA is a valuable repository of pictures and documents from major art world figures; private and business papers; photographs, and rare interviews with historical and important art world figures, - many of whom are deceased, artists, collectors, dealers and writers. I think many of his WP:EL are worthwhile.  Modernist 20:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if that is true (I don't know because I have not reviewed the links), it does not take any more time to suggest the link on an article's talk page than to add it directly to the article itself. Editors with a conflict of interest are not required to avoid Wikipedia completely, simply to work within the confines of our guidelines. -- Satori Son 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been watching this situation with some bemusement (especially as Wikipedia is supposedly the encyclopedia that "anybody can edit" and encourages editors to "be bold!"). I looked through some of the links and frankly, it seems that they improved the articles (as other editors have already noted).  So if this user had chosen some user name other than "aaa intern" these edits would have been perfectly acceptable?  I'm also a bit bothered by the apparently failure of several editors to adhere to such Wikipedia principles as Assume good faith and particularly Please do not bite the newcomers. MrDarwin 23:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've posted a comment at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. MrDarwin 01:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope User:Satori Son has reviewed the links by now - many were worthwhile edits, and they probably should be restored. Modernist 03:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of all IP's reg. to Smithsonian that have edited on wikipedia.

--Hu12 21:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Dirk, I agree this should have its own page somewhere. Should it be a subpage of this one or ??? Let me know what you think it should be called and I'll set it up and notify anybody who might be interested (like the library wikiproject though they are awfully quiet right now). Thanks. Katr67 23:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see you've started a draft. Excellent. My offer to notify people still stands, once we decide where to put this. Katr67 23:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This user's 24-hour block was changed to an indefinte block. --Shirahadasha 02:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe this user should be unblocked. A look at several links shows that they are links to Smithsonian Institution archive material on the specific artists who are the subjects of the articles. The content is relevant. This is simply is not spam by any reasonable definition. One might as well try to claim that a Wikipedian who inserts links to other Wikipedia article is spamming on behalf of Wikipedia. The inserted links provide relevant material from the Smithsonian Institution archives about the article's subject; they do not market or promote the Smithsonian Institution as an entity. WP:COI does not prohibit a party from inserting information that an independent user would consider clearly appropriate. I would recommend unblocking this user. I think an indef block completely inappropriate. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have unblocked the user. If I am further overridden I will not act again on this matter, but believe that WP:SPAM simply hasn't been met since the material is not promotional in nature, is specific, relevant, and useful to the articles it was added to. I also believe that this material would be accepted by a non-interested editor if added by an ordinary user, hence WP:COI does not require interfering. I will ask the user to voluntarily refrain from adding links to the Smithsonian Institution for the time being and discuss the issue. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:SPAM has been met, in the header, this is clear "wide-scale external link spamming", and "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." (and here, we are writing an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm). Furthermore, the account appears to have a conflict of interest.  These archivists do have a conflict of interest if they are only linking to their site.  I have tried to explain earlier, it is unclear if this is improving the encyclopedia (link additions IMHO seldomly do, why this link, and not all the other libraries and musea and archives as well, are they all allowed to add their links as well?) or (bad faith warning) that it is to tunnel people to your site (even if it is a non-commercial organisation, they still need money, and a measure for efficiency is how many visitors your page has; or for musea, even how many visitors you get into your building).  If the information is relevant, then it costs just as much time to make a post to the talkpage and discuss (as per all the relevant policies and guideline).  Again, in this case as well, many of these links can be used as a reference (maybe except for pure picture links .. but even those sometimes), I believe libraries, musea and archives are doing a great disservice to their link if they just add them to external links sections.  Please add content, and just avoid the suggestion of (coi) spam.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that WP:AGF is particularly important here and it's especially important to distinguish editors who have potentially valuable material to add from those whose material is clearly valueless. I'm not sure any of our purposes are entirely free-from self-interest, and like the city that has more streets than saints and has to name a few after sinners, I'm not sure we could survive if we accepted only work guaranteed free of any possibility of self-promotion. Many a Wikipedia editor has increased his or her edit count and presence in well-trafficked talk pages prior to an RfA. The edits no doubt are done partly for promotional purposes; edit-countitis is a problem and many don't help the encyclopedia, but no-one thinks such people should be blocked. I would treat additions of potentially but not particualarly useful material through normal processes, starting with discussion, and blocking people only if they refuse to participate in discussions and for that reason. As an aside, it's been a long time since I've seen a graffito with a datum about musea. It seems people aren't willing to get on the omnibus because they have some sort of stigmata about them. Cheers! Best, --Shirahadasha 23:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec)The link-removals by USer:Hu12 on this account have been reverted by user:Modernist, as discussed on WP:ANI (Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents). I am not sure if this is the right answer, but apparently it is OK to add external links to your library, museum or other archive en-masse to the wikipedia.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 23:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I indeed asked the user to join the discussion. Still I totally endorse User:Hu12's total removal of all link-additions by this account and am not happy with the signals that we give by allowing accounts to perform this type of edits.  As I have now said over and over, we are writing an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm.  If you think your link if useful, add it to the talkpage and discuss first .  I really would like to hear an answer to the following question: what if all musea, libraries and other archives add their external links to the external links sections.  As long as the links are appropriate, would we actually allow all of them to do that?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 23:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This I believe is sad. I was asked by email to not mention that one of the users involved is associated with the organization in question. I believe Katr67 recieved a similar email. As a result of this users participation, all spam was readded, project spam's efforts are a wash and I feel policy was subverted. IMHO, I belive that the account User:Aaa intern is a Role account for the purposes of conducting public relations and marketing via the encyclopedia which violates Help:Username. I did block the account as such, however I think I was played a fool.--Hu12 06:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, I received an e-mail basically harping about Hu12's actions, I guess because in the above discussion I questioned his(?) blocking the user in question so quickly, but like I told Hu12, I have no quarrel with him. Katr67 16:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I posted this on AN/I, but am copying it here also:

Modernist is an established editor with significant contributions to art-related articles and there is no indication he has a COI here, so he is entitled to make an editorial decision that these links have added value and should be kept. This is open to challenge as with any editorial decision. A good solution has already been found in an identical situation with User:VAwebteam (from V&A Museum), namely to set up a mini-project so that they could work with other editors to assess each proposed EL. This was very successful and they were fully co-operative. See their user and talk pages for more details. Obviously when a major institution participates in wikipedia, we don't want to chew them out. That said, we can't allow mass unsupervised insertion of links either. Careful dialogue is the way forward in such cases. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Infoart articles, where an editor, Infoart, associated with the Saatchi Gallery had created over 150 articles on artists associated with that gallery. Rather than mass speedy deletes, a team of editors worked with him and attended to each article, with the final result of the addition of much useful content to the project. Tyrenius 13:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Archives of American art is an important source of valuable and valid information for visual arts articles. I actually thought there was a mixed opinion about the links with four or five editors including an administrator or two in favor of restoring the links. I acted with the spirit of WP:AGF and WP:UCS, if I restored the links too hastily - (it was a lot of work) I apologize if I offended anyone, that was not my intention. I think the links add value and valuable information to the encyclopedia. I read a little of the history today about User:VAwebteam (from V&A Museum) and I see where these institutions have stirred issues of which I am beginning to better understand. Modernist 14:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am currently trying to write a bit of an essay on the subject of 'archivists' adding external links only (as these discussions here get archived quickly). Although the 'proof' is sometimes weak (and does not always assume good faith), I think that there are several of the policies and guidelines where these link-additions can be questioned against (WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM, WP:EL, WP:COI, ...), and that is why I think this should be addressed.  In my opinion, the way it was solved with User:VAwebteam is the way forward (that is, revert all link additions (except when they are already used as proper references), set up a project page, and check on a case-by-case basis whether the (now proposed) link is good as a reference, should be an external link, or is even better left out at all).  Another option would be, move all the added links to the talkpage, where they can be discussed.
 * The current version can be found here. Feel free to discuss parts on talkpages, add to the page, or to expand on my thoughts there.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd endorse Tyrenius's comments above. The V&A approach has worked, as the European Library one earlier really did not, because the COI user was not prepared to do things the WP way. I'd add that modern, still in copyright, artists present special problems as it is often impossible to get the images needed onto WP because of copyright. So good external links are especially useful. Johnbod 19:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.washingtonhistory.org/wshs
Here's another archivist to keep track of; started and stopped spamming in June. Again, not all links to washingtonhistory.org are bad.




 * Accounts

Katr67 17:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.edistalearning.com
Users:

--Dirk Beetstra T C 10:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

www.bradt-travelguides.com
User has entangled links to  in the form of references to quite a few articles. The links offer no supporting information, but are an offer to sell the guide. The user was asked to explain these insertions, but blanked their user talk page and quit editing. I don't have time right now to wade through all of those articles and help would be appreciated. Burlywood 19:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Mainspace is clean. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Mainspace is clean. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm slowly working my way through deleting these links (not sure what "mainspace is clean" means!). I just discovered the user has also added links to:
 * another site low on content, offering items for sale. Burlywood 21:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * another site low on content, offering items for sale. Burlywood 21:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strange, I thought I did a linksearch, but apparently not. Indeed there are still some articles having a link to this site (at least one that I tested used it as a reference).  My mistake, sorry.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 22:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I repaired that, mainspace is now clean of bradt-travelguides.com. I removed all the references, some of which were just blatant, and many not in their place.  I do not believe this is a proper source for much of the information these references were adding (a travel guide is not a good reference for saying that the tourism is providing a nice niche).  All of these links were added by Zebedeezbd, there is now only one left, on Hilary Bradt, where I think it is appropriate.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 23:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also took out quite a couple of the libraries. A good example of a) too narrow linking (worldcat or ISBN would have been more appropriate, or the subjects did not comply with our external links guideline).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 23:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

schooltree.org
Despite the .org domain, has quite a few advertisements. Most of the data presented on the site is freely available (though perhaps not as centralized). As you can see, it covers quite a few articles. I should also note that a quick survey of some of the articles found no obvious spam patterns (i.e., link seems to have been added independently by various authors). Thoughts? OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a particularly good link, but I don't think it's spam. If you Google for info on schools in the U.S. the schooltree.org link comes up near the top. It was used in good faith to populate lists such as List of high schools in Oregon (for which I found a better source, so I deleted the schooltree link). I think people should work to find official school and school district pages that contain the same information (from where does schooltree get its info?), but I don't think the schooltree links hurt anything either. It's similar to doing a search for sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places. You often get www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com, which isn't affiliated with the official www.nps.gov/nr site, but has the same public domain information. The link to the dot com NRHP was added in good faith by a lot of people (some by me, because it had me fooled for a while!) and isn't terrible, but I've been going through and replacing it with the link to the official Oregon NRHP list, because it seems like the best link is the one closest to the source. Katr67 01:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough...I think you're right that in most cases it was added in good faith due to it's high search rank. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

London spam
http://spam.20thcenturylondon.org.uk
 * Sites spammed

http://spam.medievalists.net

http://spam.deremilitari.org

http://spam.untoldlondon.org.uk


 * Spammers

MER-C 11:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sick of cleaning this one up, can someone take over? I'm off to get some copyvios deleted. MER-C 12:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there are two different sets of links being added.


 * Accounts adding these links:
 * registered to the Museum of London
 * Traceroutes to Ontario
 * Canadian cable modem user
 * Traceroutes to Ontario
 * Canadian cable modem user
 * Canadian cable modem user


 * These domains are registered to the Museum of London; I suggest leaving them alone:
 * untoldlondon.org.uk
 * 20thcenturylondon.org.uk


 * These domains are registered to Peter Konieczny in Ajax, ON:
 * medievalists.net
 * Google AdSense: 8369607704833313
 * "You will find some advertising on our pages, such as GoogleAds and Amazon.com which is needed to cover the costs of maintaining this website. We hope this will be kept to a minimum and hopefully the ads themselves will be medieval-related."
 * deremilitari.org
 * "De Re Militari is an international scholarly association established to foster and develop interest in the study of military affairs and warfare in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period."


 * There are COI issues here, but I'm not sure how hard we should push on these domains, given all the hundreds of truly trashy spam links we get thrown at us every day. Linkwatcher indicates some of these links have been added by high volume, respected editors. Perhaps we should toss this one to WP:COI/N to sort out.


 * This just highlights, once again, the need for guidance on COI and spam issues involving museums and archives.


 * That's just my 2 cents; others may want to take a harder line on these.
 * -- A. B. (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.residentadvisor.net

 * Spam template


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

May have some value, but all this editor has done is spam in a similar manner to the Wikia spam incident some time ago. MER-C 11:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * According to alexa Paul Clement is the site owner. Our conflict of interest guideline also applies here.  I deleted the template and suggested the User:Paulclement to contact an appropriate wikiproject.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.firsteditionpoints.com http://www.pprize.com
Fairly low-key campaign, some uses might be OK, but users behave like spammers. I cleaned these up, please monitor.



Accounts
 * (claims link is non-commercial)
 * (most recent)
 * (most recent)

Also:



Has been discussed with Tklein27, COI for sure, haven't looked into usage and I haven't cleaned up.

Thanks. Katr67 17:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The user has contacted me on my talk page asking me to remove his/her username from this list. I encouraged him/her to come here and discuss it. If someone could take a look at the above and comment, it would help. I'm not a spam expert, I just report what I see. (And I'm fairly conservative about reporting). Thanks. Katr67 15:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I left a suggestion to the editor. As a remark, spam is not about the quality or the origin of the link, it is about the way it is added, and that is why reports appear here.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dirk, Thank you for your constructive comments. That helps. So is it okay if I add a link in the Talk section when I'm trying to point out that the photo or information about the physical book is wrong? Also, could someone please explain why putting an IMDB link into a movie article is not spam, while putting a link that explains details about a book is? tklein27 17:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Also. What is the procedure to get the caption changed on a photo that is wrong?

tklein27 17:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

When I tried to change a caption to say that it was (for example) a paperback reprint rather than a first edition, someone just changes it back. What am I doing wrong?

tklein27 17:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tklein27. It is indeed good to discuss the individual cases on the talkpages, though if you have to do that for more pages, it is probably better to contact a WikiProject.  Ask them for their opinion, and create a list of what you would like to see added on a subpage of your userpage (e.g. User:tklein27/Sandbox, and see what they say about that.  If the link is really good, it is probably best a template is created, with the help of the wikiproject, and then that can be used to link.  If someone then asks questions, the template will be linked to a wikiproject, and questions can be asked there.
 * The imdb has been endorsed as a good resource, still, if someone would come and add 100 imdb links to pages, he might very well end up being reported here as well, or just being blocked if no discussion takes place there. General, we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm.  If the page linked to contains information that can be used as a reference, then that should always be the first choice (see also our external links guideline.  Hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 22:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dirk,

That clears things up. So if the problem is with my behavior, and not with the content of the sites, does anyone have an objection with me changing the heading of this discussion to “TKLEIN27 is behaving like a spammer”? I want to make it clear to all that my behavior is being called into question and not the content of the sites. Any objections?

tklein27 18:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately there may be pages linking directly to this discussion, so it is better not to change that. And I may hope people read the whole discussion (and the first sentence is already clear enough).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 23:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

... now this one I had not seen before.
Ciffob is a company selling packaging material (tea bag paper, adhesive tape, etc.). An account with the same name uploaded two images (I have not deleted them yet so everyone can see them): Image:Ciffob silicagel.jpg and Image:Ciffob silica gel.jpg. The images are not linked anymore in a document (it was on Silica gel, where already a similar, non advertising image was available). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Spam/UserReports/Ciffob

Casslin Data Systems, LLC spam on Wikipedia
Domain:
 * http:// www.ShareRev.com

Related domains:
 * http://www.freeheadset.org
 * http://www.staraffiliate.com
 * http://www.forevernowphoto.com
 * http://www.X307.com
 * http://mattmacadams.com
 * http://www.casslin.com
 * http://www.asrsys.com
 * http://mattmacadams.com
 * http://www.casslin.com
 * http://www.asrsys.com
 * http://www.casslin.com
 * http://www.asrsys.com
 * http://www.asrsys.com

Account:

Blacklisting request:
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist‎

Public registration data:
 * Casslin Data Systems, LLC
 * PO BOX 501176
 * San Diego, California 92150
 * United States


 * Administrative Contact:
 * MACADAMS, MATT
 * PO BOX 501176
 * SAN DIEGO, California 92150
 * United States
 * 8887336230

-- A. B. (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Kaopectate: External link is adspam or not?
Kaopectate has a link to an external site. IMHO, this one is on the borderline between a valid link and adspam. What do those more experienced in combatting adspam think? -- 201.19.20.38 13:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.staythirstymedia.com



 * Account:

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk  15:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.slidedummy.info
I removed a link from the Slide disambiguation page because it seemed like spam on that page, but the other places I found links to this site are mostly in articles, and I don't feel experienced enough to choose whether they are appropriate enough. I see it on the pagesKitchen cabinet‎ and Do it yourself --illumi 21:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It got spammed, it can be removed:

Users:

Removed them all. Thanks for the report. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparent conflict of interest as well, the site is maintained by Derrick and Dane Lawless. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Swiss banking spam
Sites: All registered to the same address.

Accounts:
 * no edits to articles, but listing on user page and user page has been edited by 86.146.216.27
 * also only edits own user page
 * no edits to articles, but listing on user page and user page has been edited by 86.146.216.27
 * also only edits own user page
 * no edits to articles, but listing on user page and user page has been edited by 86.146.216.27
 * also only edits own user page
 * no edits to articles, but listing on user page and user page has been edited by 86.146.216.27
 * also only edits own user page
 * no edits to articles, but listing on user page and user page has been edited by 86.146.216.27
 * also only edits own user page

Could an admin delete the registered account user and/or talk pages? They appear to simply be advertising without any attempt to improve Wikipedia. Thanks.

-- SiobhanHansa 17:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The blacklist beckons. MER-C 08:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here the domains that I could find that were owned by the same person. I found these mostly by checking out AbutUs.org info. (AboutUs.org's "Related Domains" info is very useful but is based on AboutUs.org's bot's best guess in most cases, so you have to double-check ownership; I've added AboutUs.org to my spam template at User:A. B./spam).
 * Previously listed:
 * 1.
 * 2.
 * 3.
 * 4.
 * 5.
 * 6.
 * 7.


 * Related domains:
 * 1.
 * 2.
 * 3.
 * 4.
 * 5.
 * 6.
 * 7.
 * 8.
 * 9.
 * 10.
 * 11.
 * 12.
 * 13.
 * 14.
 * 15.
 * 16.
 * 17.
 * 18.


 * Anyone know a wealthy widow in Abuja that needs help with offshore banking?
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See also:
 * (spam user page)
 * de:Spezial:Beiträge/86.130.96.213
 * es:Special:Contributions/82.42.56.100
 * simple:Special:Contributions/86.158.32.78
 * it:Speciale:Contributi/86.158.32.78
 * ja:特別:Contributions/86.158.32.78
 * pl:Specjalna:Wkład/86.158.32.78
 * it:Speciale:Contributi/86.130.96.213
 * I suggested blacklisting everything that's been spammed at meta.
 * -- A. B. (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Meta blacklist request:
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist (permanent link)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.swemorph.com


Accounts:
 * all good faith edits, only one insertion of the link
 * 21 April 2005 edits only
 * July 2007 - September 2007
 * November 2005 - June 2006 - edited as if he's Ritchey
 * July 2006 - June 2007, COI


 * 126 links total, 70 to pdfs and subpages. I'm guessing there are more accounts. --Ronz 22:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably a coi too. --Ronz 23:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Definite coi for 80.216.158.236 who identifies himself in the link above as the founder and main contact person of the Swedish Morphological Society, as well as the author of most of the articles that have been linked. --Ronz 04:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed all but 16 links. I think the remaining links are worth keeping. --Ronz 04:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

albumofthemonth.com
Various users, blatantly all socks, have been adding ext links to albumofthemonth.com, a purely commerical Amazon affiliate. The links were on about 140 articles, most of which have been removed now. Stu  ’Bout ye!  19:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I just put shadowbot on the revert (with override!) for this link, as I got about 10 alert from COIBot from 10 different accounts adding the link to .. again 10 different pages. All reverted, blatant spam.  When the list is complete, I will block all these socks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * All the used single purpose accounts are now blocked for sockpuppeting, the blocklog links to COIBots report. It feels a bit like this is a Joe job, actually.  Any clues anyone?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Links don't meet our requirements
 * Spammer ignores our requests
 * Spammer uses sockpuppets (also against the rules)
 * We can't stop the spammer except by blacklisting
 * I say blacklist locally. If it's a Joe job, then the domain owner and his evil twin can sort this out among themselves -- it's our job to run an encyclopedia, not identify the imposter among a bunch of socks. Even if it is a Joe job, we still don't want the links. -- A. B. (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅, per above discussions and thoughts, re-added to Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW, possible sockpuppets sorted by account creation date (UTC):
 * 14:39, 27 June 2007
 * 19:57, 27 June 2007
 * 08:08, 28 June 2007
 * 11:36, 29 June 2007
 * 09:14, 5 July 2007
 * 12:34, 5 July 2007
 * 11:52, 7 July 2007
 * 18:33, 7 July 2007
 * 15:59, 10 July 2007
 * 10:26, 11 July 2007
 * 08:19, 12 July 2007
 * 19:50, 12 July 2007
 * 15:52, 17 July 2007
 * 09:39, 18 July 2007
 * 11:31, 18 July 2007
 * 11:33, 18 July 2007
 * 14:39, 18 July 2007
 * 14:40, 18 July 2007
 * 09:44, 19 July 2007
 * 09:46, 19 July 2007
 * 10:15, 20 July 2007
 * 11:05, 20 July 2007
 * 15:31, 21 July 2007
 * 11:17, 25 July 2007
 * 12:53, 25 July 2007
 * 12:54, 25 July 2007
 * 12:56, 25 July 2007
 * 12:59, 25 July 2007
 * 15:35, 26 July 2007
 * 15:37, 26 July 2007
 * 16:24, 27 July 2007
 * 16:35, 27 July 2007
 * 19:17, 29 July 2007
 * 13:28, 30 July 2007
 * 15:07, 31 July 2007
 * 17:13, 31 July 2007
 * 18:17, 31 July 2007
 * 10:40, 1 August 2007
 * 10:43, 2 August 2007
 * 10:56, 2 August 2007
 * 11:55, 2 August 2007
 * 08:10, 5 August 2007
 * 08:16, 5 August 2007
 * 10:08, 6 August 2007
 * 21:20, 6 August 2007
 * 08:54, 20 August 2007
 * 13:35, 20 August 2007
 * 11:58, 30 August 2007
 * 12:21, 30 August 2007
 * 14:51, 30 August 2007
 * 14:54, 30 August 2007
 * 14:57, 30 August 2007
 * 15:22, 30 August 2007
 * 15:21, 31 August 2007
 * 13:47, 7 September 2007
 * 13:52, 7 September 2007
 * 13:59, 7 September 2007
 * 14:02, 7 September 2007
 * 14:06, 7 September 2007
 * 14:09, 7 September 2007
 * 08:57, 8 September 2007
 * Many built small edit histories by excessively wikifying a bit of a non-music article or adding a slight bit of trivia. Likely Europe or South Asia based on the times. Sometimes added a little natural history information (see and ). The two IPs adding these links traceroute to Great Britain.
 * -- A. B. (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 19:17, 29 July 2007
 * 13:28, 30 July 2007
 * 15:07, 31 July 2007
 * 17:13, 31 July 2007
 * 18:17, 31 July 2007
 * 10:40, 1 August 2007
 * 10:43, 2 August 2007
 * 10:56, 2 August 2007
 * 11:55, 2 August 2007
 * 08:10, 5 August 2007
 * 08:16, 5 August 2007
 * 10:08, 6 August 2007
 * 21:20, 6 August 2007
 * 08:54, 20 August 2007
 * 13:35, 20 August 2007
 * 11:58, 30 August 2007
 * 12:21, 30 August 2007
 * 14:51, 30 August 2007
 * 14:54, 30 August 2007
 * 14:57, 30 August 2007
 * 15:22, 30 August 2007
 * 15:21, 31 August 2007
 * 13:47, 7 September 2007
 * 13:52, 7 September 2007
 * 13:59, 7 September 2007
 * 14:02, 7 September 2007
 * 14:06, 7 September 2007
 * 14:09, 7 September 2007
 * 08:57, 8 September 2007
 * Many built small edit histories by excessively wikifying a bit of a non-music article or adding a slight bit of trivia. Likely Europe or South Asia based on the times. Sometimes added a little natural history information (see and ). The two IPs adding these links traceroute to Great Britain.
 * -- A. B. (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 11:58, 30 August 2007
 * 12:21, 30 August 2007
 * 14:51, 30 August 2007
 * 14:54, 30 August 2007
 * 14:57, 30 August 2007
 * 15:22, 30 August 2007
 * 15:21, 31 August 2007
 * 13:47, 7 September 2007
 * 13:52, 7 September 2007
 * 13:59, 7 September 2007
 * 14:02, 7 September 2007
 * 14:06, 7 September 2007
 * 14:09, 7 September 2007
 * 08:57, 8 September 2007
 * Many built small edit histories by excessively wikifying a bit of a non-music article or adding a slight bit of trivia. Likely Europe or South Asia based on the times. Sometimes added a little natural history information (see and ). The two IPs adding these links traceroute to Great Britain.
 * -- A. B. (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 13:52, 7 September 2007
 * 13:59, 7 September 2007
 * 14:02, 7 September 2007
 * 14:06, 7 September 2007
 * 14:09, 7 September 2007
 * 08:57, 8 September 2007
 * Many built small edit histories by excessively wikifying a bit of a non-music article or adding a slight bit of trivia. Likely Europe or South Asia based on the times. Sometimes added a little natural history information (see and ). The two IPs adding these links traceroute to Great Britain.
 * -- A. B. (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 14:09, 7 September 2007
 * 08:57, 8 September 2007
 * Many built small edit histories by excessively wikifying a bit of a non-music article or adding a slight bit of trivia. Likely Europe or South Asia based on the times. Sometimes added a little natural history information (see and ). The two IPs adding these links traceroute to Great Britain.
 * -- A. B. (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Many built small edit histories by excessively wikifying a bit of a non-music article or adding a slight bit of trivia. Likely Europe or South Asia based on the times. Sometimes added a little natural history information (see and ). The two IPs adding these links traceroute to Great Britain.
 * -- A. B. (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an impressive example of very subtle sockpuppetry and obfuscation; Stu made a great catch. Even now, with careful analysis, it's possible to say a clear pattern of widespread sockpuppetry exists, but without running checkusers, it's impossible to say any one account above is a sockpuppet. For this reason, I recommend not blocking any of these users unless further misbehaviour surfaces. --13:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I don't know if it is related, but I decided to monitor the IP of the URL . That resulted in the following, seconds after I added the rule to COIBot:
 * [15:27:33]  ALERT! Monitored link www.toolsforpreschools.com (rule: 213.171.192.98 - reason: toolsforpreschools.com resolves to 213.171.192.98 -> IP of albumofthemonth.com, see WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/albumofthemonth.com) added by en:user:SMFosterHall/en:special:contributions/SMFosterHall ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Preschool_education&diff=156928919&oldid=156508832  )
 * Any thoughts on this? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The typical spammer is like most other webmasters -- he pays someone else to host his websites. Perhaps <10% of spammers host their own domains from what I can tell. Here's what http://whois.domaintools.com/albumofthemonth.com has to say about this domain's host:
 * "Server Data" section:
 * "IP Address:	 213.171.192.98"
 * and a little further down the page (in the "DomainTools Exclusive" section):
 * "Reverse IP:	 7,214 other sites hosted on this server."
 * The whois data for this IP turns up:
 * "213.171.192.0 - 213.171.197.255"
 * "FASTHOSTS-UK-NETWORK"
 * "UK's largest web hosting company"
 * "based in Gloucester, England"


 * Also the whois data is different for each domain:
 * toolsforpreschools.com
 * albumofthemonth.com
 * So I think COIBot's catch is purely coincidental ... and fortuitous, since the toolsforpreschools.com link additions are inappropriate promotional links for a software company (as SiobhanHansa has very graciously and nicely informed the person adding them. -- A. B. (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Alcohol problems and solutions"

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

There are about 350 links to this site, nearly all set up by its author. Although not blatantly commercial, he seems to have spam-linked heavily to promote his opinions. Jonathan Luckett 12:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets monitor for some time. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets monitor for some time. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Another minor spam campaign to list

 * added by User:Andrew9109. Cleaned and explained. --BozMo talk 21:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.cellpacksolutions.com http://spam.myhometown-schools.co.uk http://spam.southshields-sanddancers.co.uk



 * 8 June 2006 - 12 June 2006: added nothing but the links
 * 28 August 2007: added nothing but the links
 * 26 October 2006: added two links and made a test edit
 * 25 August 2007: one edit only - good faith edit
 * 10 May 2007: one edit only - good faith edit
 * 17 November 2006: one edit only
 * 17 November 2006 & 2 March 2007 - added nothing but the links with the exception of modifying the link added by 86.139.220.87


 * I cleaned these up at the end of last month. Eddiec just contacted me about them, so I thought a report would be useful for discussion. --Ronz 22:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Porn linkspammer is back
See also:
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_May
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Apr

Apparently has a new set of links: Users:

This is only K and L .. the other letters are also out there? --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This one doing L's turned up at WP:OP... -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Videmus Omnia and I have also been working on this one and have found more links; see:
 * User:A. B./Sandbox16


 * See this long discussion on my user page about the patterns we've found so far:
 * User talk:A. B.
 * This looks like it's going to be a very big, very difficult spam operation to figure out and stop; we're up to 215 domains so far with probably at least that many more out there to find. After many hours, I still don't even know who this guy is. -- A. B. (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. We can use all the help we can get! Could someone perhaps work on the harder core (>R-rated) section? -- A. B. (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've modified AntiSpamBot to catch all of these sites using the IP address they all resolve to. Shadow1  (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks!


 * Looks like I've been busy reinventing wheels. More links:
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/03
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/04
 * This could use its own WikiProject! -- A. B. (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And to further extend the number of weapons in this: the linkwatchers that we are running are currently watching all 722 wikis that are operative. COIBot is watching the output of these linkwatchers.  Therefore I also build Shadow42's code resolving code into COIBot.  COIBot will now resolve all IPs, and when the resolved IP is on the monitorlist, it will create a report (see WikiProject Spam/LinkReports).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 22:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Having a bit a look around certainly helps, and User:A. B./Sandbox16 has been expanded with quite some sites in this range. I hope that that sandbox now contains the majority, though I think the bots will now start to pick it up anyway.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 01:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. I'm not sure I fully understand all that you did, but it's impressive and is very, very helpful! -- A. B. (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The spammer was back, the bots all picked up the linkadditions properly. I have now blacklisted all links from User:A. B.'s sandbox.  If he now changes the IP of the URL's he is spamming, we would like to know that ASAP.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Amazing work, and thank you very much. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Love note to a spammer
I can't believe it -- spamming right up to within a minute or two of Dirk's blacklisting all the domains we've found so far.

I suspect he'll be back soon. I left him a note at the IP he used today:
 * User talk:207.195.245.237

We'll see if it makes any impression (if he even sees it). -- A. B. (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Great note! OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I must note here, I was watching the output of our bots, and when the spam hit the fan, I took the prepared blacklist and copied it into the blacklist. I could have done that yesterday evening .. but we needed to know if the bots really would catch this and react properly .. let him now try to add the link to one of the 722 wikipedia the linkwatchers are watching .. we will notice.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I had a note dropped to my Talk page about your work and what you've done so far is great. Dirk mentioned earlier that he was spamming K's and L's... how would you like to get a jump on the M's? :)

What someone should do is write a script to access each of those spam websites, then click through to the "Links" page present on each and check to see what's there. If you look at the Links page for "Leyla Milani" (put a .net on the end to form the URL), you'll see a bunch of models & actresses whose first names start with "M". E.g., martinemccutcheon dot org, marthawainwright dot org, mirandaotto dot org, etc. A check through on the Links section at kerrikasem dot net has a completely different set of URLs - jarahmariano dot org, jennigarth dot org, garcellebeauvais dot net, etc.

As well, they now seem to favor coming in through proxies, so I would see if it's possible to modify the AntiSpamBot or COIBot so that when they see someone trying to add a blocked link to automatically dump the offender's IP address to the check list at WP:WPOP. Tabercil 00:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

thevideobeat.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 02:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.myspace.com/clearvisionentertainment/
Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk  16:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Account
 * Account

startingiseasy.com
For the record - I have requested blacklisting of startingiseasy.com on meta. Large cross-wiki aspect (though only one IP). see WikiProject Spam/UserReports/84.27.107.217 and the from there linked LinkReports. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

clientelevision.com: lawyer links

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

Thank you. --CliffC 03:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Domain:
 * http://clientelevision.com
 * Account:
 * I left first request to stop adding links (other accounts have been warned before)
 * Traceoutes to Baltimore, Maryland
 * Article:
 * The Legal Television Network
 * Network appears notable although reference links have expired.
 * -- A. B. (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Network appears notable although reference links have expired.
 * -- A. B. (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional spam domain:
 * http://clientelevision.com
 * http://www.legalnews.tv
 * http://www.legalnews.tv


 * Related domains:
 * http://www.howlawworks.com
 * http://www.irwinkramer.com
 * http://www.irwinkramer.com


 * Additional accounts:
 * Traceroutes to Owings Mills, Maryland
 * Registered to an Owings Mills ISP
 * Traceroutes to Towson, Maryland
 * Employed by site-owner
 * Traceroutes to Towson, Maryland
 * Employed by site-owner
 * Employed by site-owner
 * Employed by site-owner


 * Articles:
 * The Legal Television Network
 * LTVN (redirect page)


 * Public registration data:
 * Irwin Kramer
 * 500 Redland Court
 * Owings Mills, MD 21117
 * -- A. B. (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * All mainspace links cleaned up except those added by others and/or admissible per WP:EL: Foie gras controversy, Todd Bertuzzi, James J. Kilpatrick, Joseph C. Wilson, The Legal Television Network. -- A. B. (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.kqed.org
Already meantioned earlier, and there are some warnings on the talkpage of the IP today:



Apparently a good link, as it contains a lot of data. But the account has been adding the link repeatedly, and has itself not responded whatsoever to any of the warnings. I gave it a uw-spam4im earlier, and an explanatory text shortly after, but that was ignored.



If this is indeed deemed to be a good link, then I suggest that the people involved in kqed work together with a wikiproeject, and that the wikiproject endorses a template. That template can then be used to add the links. As the IP in question does not seem to respond, I think further linkadditions should be treated as linkspam. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

These were being spammed back in july, apparently its continued.--Hu12 01:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jul

another--Hu12 02:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.themall.co.uk

 * See Also → Articles_for_deletion/The_Mall_Company (and related)


 * Spammers

Has some remnant links, not sure whether we should get rid of them. MER-C 12:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Added afd--Hu12 19:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.paspn.net
Adsense pub-1623043375639391 http://spam.pistonshistory.com Redirects to paspn.net


 * Spammers

MER-C 12:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Added IP--Hu12 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Added some details--Hu12 18:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.sporha.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 13:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.vibereview.com

 * Account:

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk  18:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.mojouniverse.com

 * Account:

Target site is just a basic cookie-cutter page with some Google ads. Videmus Omnia Talk  18:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Videmus, it may be spam but I wished I owned that domain name -- do you suppose Dr. Evil is behind this one? See any sharks on that site? -- A. B. (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * With frickin' lasers on their frickin' heads - yeah baby! Videmus Omnia Talk  20:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 300px..clean for now--Hu12 20:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

world-religion.org citation spam
Ad-sense pub-4015403507195401


 * (all edits)
 * (regular editing initially, then a 6 month break and back only adding links from September 8th)

Link claims to be a public domain version of the 1921 Canney Encyclopedia of Religion.

Conversation at my talk page and RapidReferenceWriter's talk page. -- SiobhanHansa 18:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just signing off after leaving a note on Siobhan's talk page and saw his entry here. Here's a bit more:
 * 2 more accounts:
 * Cross-wiki spam: simple:Special:Contributions/Fastfactchecker
 * 2 more domains:
 * Goggle Adsense ID for all three domains: 4015403507195401
 * 2 more domains:
 * Goggle Adsense ID for all three domains: 4015403507195401
 * Goggle Adsense ID for all three domains: 4015403507195401
 * Goggle Adsense ID for all three domains: 4015403507195401


 * I'm on an urgent trip and can't follow up -- can someone else? These should probably go to meta, given the x-wiki aspect. -- A. B. (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks A.B. Now reported at meta (permanent link) .  Are we supposed to get it blacklisted locally as well - or only if it's turned down at meta? -- SiobhanHansa 22:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If meta blacklists, then there's no need to here. Otherwise, if they don't, then take it to the local blacklist. In my own experience, spammers increase their x-wiki spamming over time, they don't decrease it. Herbythyme, the most active meta admin handling blacklisting issues nowadays, is very sensitive and responsive to this sort of thing once someone makes a good case as you have. (At the same time he's very chary of requests where the supporting facts haven't been laid out very thoroughly.) -- A. B. (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Now blacklisted on meta. -- A. B. (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Only the two webkinz related sites have actually been put on the blacklist, not the world-religion.org site. I've left a message on the admin's talk page asking if this is an oversight or not.  -- SiobhanHansa 13:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Now done. -- SiobhanHansa 01:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.whatiftees.com http://spam.cafepress.com/whatiftees

 * Spammers

MER-C 11:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Apart from the article CafePress.com itself I have a hard time imagining where any cafepress link would be appropriate in Wikipedia (other WikiMedia projects might have uses though). Is this something we could locally blacklist for all but the actual link used on the website's own article? -- SiobhanHansa 21:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We cannot selectively whitelist links for separate pages. Blacklist means it can't be linked to, period. Still, I don't see a reason why we should have cafepress.com links on Wikipedia - the blacklist beckons. MER-C 11:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Referrer codes
Is there anything the bots can do about spammers adding referrer codes to links, apparently in an attempt to make a commission from site visits/subscriptions? (See this for a guy on dynamic IPs I'm fighting now.) I requested page semi-protection on Flower Tucci, not sure what else I can do about this. Videmus Omnia Talk  02:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ I semi protected the page, other than blacklisting the link this is the correct move for now. I had the same problem on Moneybookers moneybookers.com search doccumented Id's and IP's. I even uncovered wikipedia foundation refferal id LOL. Any way, you should check for the affiliate spamming cross-wiki,  I'd assume others have attemptd the same on other wiki's. --Hu12 03:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Cookie-cutter porn linkspammer back

 * Account

The above IP spammed the following sites:
 * (AntiSpamBot caught this one)
 * (AntiSpamBot caught this one)

In the past, this IP has spammed the following sites:

Following links from the spammed sites gets the following additional sites:

There are undoubtedly more, I only followed the link pages out for one hop - some of the above sites link to even more sites. Some of the pages have a different look, so either our guy is changing his template or has a buddy or partner included in his site links. Videmus Omnia Talk  05:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * These pages are related (partially similar layout), but certainly not the same. They contain banners and the most of the names are now not just the name of the person, but more extended.  Also old tricks to find the related pages don't work (or did our spammer quickly change the strategy (and server settings) after he saw our previous block)?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Eagle 101/SpamInDabs
That list contains a long listing of external links in disambig pages from last month's database dump. As disambig pages are really not supposed to have external links (rather they should have internal links) every instance of an external link is spam. Have fun. Let me know when the first batch is done, there is 2 more batches to follow for a total of ~4,000 pages. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 10:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Can someone hire a bot for that job? Should be easy to match to a regex, and just kill the external links and references.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I considered that myself, but there are two problems with a bot, number one, the formatting of the spam is not consistant, sometimes the spammers put an == External Links == header in there, or use other shenanigans. Secondly its useful for a human to review these as the articles that are next to the links in the disambigs may need to be deleted per per the no-spam speedy deletion criteria. Example
 * MyComanyIsAwsome! - the b3st c0mpany in teh w0rld! Official site
 * A bot would simply either remove just the link, or would remove the whole line, failing to note or delete the spam article. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 10:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, true. Hmm .. quite a task ahead then.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.allthingshidef.com

 * http://spam.numberzoom.com
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 19:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Splendid-gowns.com spammer back as dress-codes.eu
Previous spam report. The same content is now being spammed under a newly registered domain

New IP spammer

This version does not have the store that the previous version did, but it is still promotion (of poorly written content) by multiple IPs who add nothing else to Wikipedia. I'm recommending this go straight to the local blacklist. -- SiobhanHansa 20:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I added it.--Hu12 21:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A few more Dagnez domains we may end up seeing:
 * http://www.ball-dresses.eu
 * http://www.black-dresses.eu
 * http://www.blue-dresses.eu
 * http://www.bridal-dresses.eu
 * http://www.bridesmaid-dresses.eu
 * http://www.casual-dresses.eu
 * http://www.cheap-dresses.eu
 * http://www.cocktail-dresses.eu
 * http://www.dagnez.com
 * http://www.dagnez.com.pl
 * http://www.dagnez.ru
 * http://www.evening-dresses.eu
 * http://www.flower-girl-dresses.eu
 * http://www.formal-dresses.eu
 * http://www.homecoming-dresses.eu
 * http://www.kleider-abendkleider.com
 * http://www.mother-of-the-bride-dresses.eu
 * http://www.platya.eu
 * http://www.prom-dresses.eu
 * http://www.sexy-dresses.eu
 * http://www.splendid-handbags.com
 * http://www.suknie.net
 * http://www.svatebni-saty.com
 * http://www.trajes-de-noche.com
 * http://www.wedding-gowns.eu
 * http://www.white-dresses.eu
 * http://www.formal-dresses.eu
 * http://www.homecoming-dresses.eu
 * http://www.kleider-abendkleider.com
 * http://www.mother-of-the-bride-dresses.eu
 * http://www.platya.eu
 * http://www.prom-dresses.eu
 * http://www.sexy-dresses.eu
 * http://www.splendid-handbags.com
 * http://www.suknie.net
 * http://www.svatebni-saty.com
 * http://www.trajes-de-noche.com
 * http://www.wedding-gowns.eu
 * http://www.white-dresses.eu
 * http://www.splendid-handbags.com
 * http://www.suknie.net
 * http://www.svatebni-saty.com
 * http://www.trajes-de-noche.com
 * http://www.wedding-gowns.eu
 * http://www.white-dresses.eu
 * http://www.trajes-de-noche.com
 * http://www.wedding-gowns.eu
 * http://www.white-dresses.eu
 * http://www.wedding-gowns.eu
 * http://www.white-dresses.eu
 * http://www.white-dresses.eu


 * Already blacklisted
 * www.dress-codes.eu
 * www.splendid-gowns.com
 * www.splendid-gowns.com


 * Google Adsense: 2649206639795347
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Accounts:
 * -- A. B. (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)