Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Aug 1

www.spinoffreport.co.uk
User talk:92.10.98.234 moved to User talk:Jimmyosman123 Mion (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)



Monitor it. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 20:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible Link Spam - Don't know how to resolve
I come to you, oh guardians of the Grand Encyclopedia, for advice on how to deal with someone I consider a link spammer but I'm unsure of how to proceed. See User talk:EagleFalconn and User talk:EagleFalconn. Basically I've been working on Acid dissociation constant and User:71.160.182.120 added a link to their pKa prediction software to the EL. I removed it because it was irrelevant to the article, and checked the IP contrib history and saw that it'd been done to several articles so I removed those links too. IP is now complaining of unfair treatment and has made an article about his company citing a couple papers and making some broad claims that I find suspect. I was going to AfD the article but I wasn't sure and figured I'd let an expert handle it. I think one of the first things that needs to happen is the removal of all the commercial links that the IP complains about in those articles. I tend to agree with the IP that those shouldn't necessarily be there. I leave it in your hands, I'll be watching the page if you need anything from me. EagleFalconn (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Meta help and IRC help
I am going to refresh this. Although also here there is still quite some help needed to keep everything clean, I would also like people to consider helping at the spam blacklist at meta. Also, for those who use IRC, help would also be appreciated in the IRC channels (where the bots report in near real-time), see the talk channel. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

angelfire.com
After seeing someone spamming:



today, I decided to add the whole of angelfire.com to XLinkBot (\bangelfire\.com\b).



(the linksearch here and on meta in the IP show how many are (recognised as) 'coi' 'spammed'; there are 3468 additions of 'angelfire.com' and 3587 additions of '*.angelfire.com' recorded in the last approx. 10 months).

Just noted here as a record. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.cunardconnections.com/

 * Links


 * Account

New account created whose only contributions have been to post the same link to multiple articles. The target link bills itself as:
 * "We are a privately owned website designed to bring together people interested in all aspects of Cunard Line. We are also an outlet for businesses related to Cunard Line (travel suppliers, memorabilia dealers, maritime artists, etc.) to sponsor and promote their goods and services."

The technical information provided on the site is already better covered via other links from the articles. The remaining content (advertising link directories and forums) fail WP:ELNO. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Block if they start again - ping me if you can't get anyone else to though I may not respond immediately. Certainly needs stopping.  Cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 07:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The removal of the link from Cunard Line was reverted, which I do not agree with. See relevant discussion at User talk:Barek. This seems a clear spam link to me, but I'll wait to see what the Project members here have to say. — Satori Son 17:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * From the quote above, from the SPA account etc - it is spam to me. I would consider blacklisting the link if it keeps being added.  (btw - removed it) Cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 18:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

About 400 links to the two sites of one individual


Timestamp. MER-C 03:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The first site is funded by the drinks industry "The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, Inc. provided an unrestricted grant that was used to fund this web site, for which funding also was received from other sources." (in Disclaimer). Therefore, the owner would appear to have a vested interest in linking to his site.

The owner of these sites David J. Hanson) / Editor David Justin has a history of using sock puppets – see Suspected sock puppets/David Justin and Suspected sock puppets/David Justin (2nd), Suspected sock puppets/David Justin (3rd), and Talk:David J. Hanson. It seems likely that the following are also sock puppets of Hanson used, in this case, mainly to add links to his site:
 * Spammers

This list is by no means exhaustive. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * An interesting statement by the author here. --CliffC (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Another website here: The websites should be deleted as both references and external links as the funding statements made by and about Hansen do not match the disclaimer, and the .edu is misleading. Flowanda | Talk 04:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What's to be done with all these links and references? I have removed a few and added disclaimers to others, but was not sure if there's a process/concensus/conclusion yet to be completed. Flowanda | Talk 19:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I discovered this process only a little while ago so it's all new to me. I was hoping a more experienced anti-spammer would take this forward in some way, but I don't really know what happens next. Thank you for your work so far, Flowanda. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Where the author has added external links to his own articles they should be removed - or, when appropriate, moved to the article talk page to gain consensus from uninvolved editors on whether or not they are appropriate. Where the author has added content and references to his own work they should be moved to the talk page to get consensus from unconnected editors.  Hanson appears to be an expert in the subject but the funding arrangements and the editing pattern must raise NPOV flags. It look very much like soapboxing to me.  Questions for editors to consider when thinking about including him :  Are his views mainstream?  Are they appropriately represented and is the use of his personal website an appropriate source for the claims being made or should such claims really be sourced from a published paper?  Are there better ways to get across any good information that is included? It is important to emphasize for the .edu site in particular that this is a personal page and should not be seen to have the University behind it. Let me know if this sounds like a doable plan and I can try and help. -- SiobhanHansa 13:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added them to XLinkBot, though I do not have a lot of info in the linkwatchers database (as expressed in the COIBot reports



--Dirk Beetstra T C 12:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On the articles I edited I removed most of the content and the references since the info was usually biased, and the website did not meet WP:RS, but I usually left the external link with a disclaimer as to it being an .edu site: Mothers Against Drunk Driving or left a message on the talk page to distinguish any notability Hanson had from this site: Talk:Candy Lightner. On most of the articles Hanson created, he included a link on the talk page with an indication that the article (many of them about people involved in prohibition) was taken directly from his website, so I don't know if that's a copyvio. Many of the bio articles haven't been changed much, and the only source was his webpage, so that's when I stopped editing them and came here. Some of the articles do have good sources at the end. Flowanda | Talk 14:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The aim of the website seems to be promoting lower drinking ages and youth alcohol marketing/advertising, along with strong criticism of any opposition. Here's a good example of some of the edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving&diff=prev&oldid=227584272 . The website articles are usually a lot worse. Flowanda | Talk 14:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Can the likely sock puppets Wine3 through to Curious Student + Jerry Rivers be blocked without further ado? (Malelaku through to O. C. Levitt are already blocked.) Or does it have to raised formally as the fifth sock puppetry case for this individual? Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through most of the pages putting a brief notice about the funding of the site. This is an interim measure. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've asked nicely for a little research here ;) Certainly warrants more attention.  Cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 17:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed some of the offending links so it's more like 200 now. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am certainly inclined to block the obvious SPA/puppet accounts here. However I notice that the edits are from 2006 and as such there will be no CU data.  Are there any users who have recently contributed the links concerned?  Thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 11:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems he went through a 'phase', peaking in late 2006, of using sock puppets to link to his sites. Heaven knows why. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by CU data. If you mean a log of these editor's IP addresses, I think they're long gone. I think an IP address check was done in one of the previous sock puppetry cases so that might still be available. It might be possible to stop new accounts being created from that address. As for other sock puppets, it's not always easy to find the exact editor who added a link as you have to trawl through edit histories that are sometimes pages long. So there may be more recent ones than those above. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. If anyone does want to search for recent placements I'll get the CU data and we could dig some more.
 * I'm in two minds whether blocking long gone people serves much purpose but if folk think it is worth it I will do so? Cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 07:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's worthwhile provided it's not too much effort on your part. A) It stops him using them again B} People in the future will be able to see these were socks, for the avoidance of doubt. As well as the names in in red above, "Jerry Rivers" needs to be blocked. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All blocked now. If you find anything else and I don't respond you are welcome to ping me.  Cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 11:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Nunquam Dormio (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

spam.disneylandresort-paris.tk

 * Links


 * Account

This is a tricky one. If you follow the link, it appears to work. But, if you have scripts disabled then do a view source on the page, you find that the link uses frames to make the IP look like it remains the one clicked, while it actually calls a referral link at clkuk.tradedoubler.com/click?p(8854)a(1399565)g(214505)

This same user tried changing the "Official site" link to be the tradedoubler link directly once; then tried hiding it with a minu.ws redirect (here - http: //minu.ws/UuW) (while using a misleading edit summary), and has most recently tries the above URL with a misleading edit summary here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note, the same user has tried the same trick with:
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Additional user account (as of today):

Due to the continued posting of this tricky (and the blatant spam nature) of this link, I'm going to submit it to the blacklist for consideration for inclusion there. As it points to a script that secretly uses a referral link, there would never be a legitimate use of these links on Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * -- blacklisted by Herby. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

samsantravels.com spam

 * Spammers

MER-C 10:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * -- if it's bad enough for user blocks, it's bad enough to blacklist.-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Related domains:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.britanhotel.com

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 12:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This report removed by  on August 5 2008. -- SiobhanHansa 11:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Related domains:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

vacationstogo.com spam

 * Links (including related links)


 * Accounts


 * Articles
 * Vacations To Go, Inc. (deleted twice under WP:CSD)

I've found a series of related edits occuring over the last few days, related to the above links. In all cases, the links are to the travel agent's front page, and do not directly support the text being cited at the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This report was removed, interestingly.   x42bn6 Talk Mess  21:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By a new editor, who I've warned. --Ronz (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks planned/co-ordinated & worth watching. -- Herby talk thyme 08:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it be acceptable and worthwhile to get the names of the editors that created Vacations To Go, Inc. and check for sockpuppetry? --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned it to someone I know ;) I would be amazed if there were no connection personally. -- Herby  talk thyme 15:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

At Herby's request I have run a CU check. Results sent to Herby for followup. The accounts named in the Accounts list (as well as others) are all highly correlated and very likely to be the same person or persons... likely owners or employees of the firm in question. ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the info. I have now blocked a collection of SPA/puppet accounts who were placing links and who originated from a particular source.
 * I suggest that if this or related links are placed again the sites concerned should be blacklisted without hesitation. Cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 15:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Another one from several days ago:


 * if it's bad enough to user-block, it's bad enough to blacklist. A 6-sockpuppet spammer with multiple account blocks can be expected to keep pushing our limits until then. Let me see what other domains there are and I will add to the blacklist. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Related domains
-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

PhoneBookHistorianGeek

 * Links (partial list)


 * Account

This user joined WP about two weeks ago, and immediately started adding multiple links at a time to multiple city pages—some of which were spammy, some of which weren't (examples: ; ; ). Due to the nature of the edits, Ckatz and I reverted all of them, and I recommended to him that he should read WP:External links.

Since then, he's added links to city talk pages (such as and ), saying that he wants to discuss if addition of these links to the article would be acceptable. However, even when someone says that it's fine (ex: ), he doesn't go back and add them in. Instead, he says thanks (ex: ), and then starts the process over again with other cities.

He's also received some feedback telling him that just adding external links doesn't do much to improve the encyclopedia, and maybe he should put some effort into writing articles instead. In those cases, he doesn't respond.

Now, yes, he's doing what WP asks: put it on the talk page and ask for opinions. But given that he never adds the links to the articles, I'm beginning to think that his goal is just to get the links onto the talk pages themselves.

Does this still count as spamming, and if so, how can it be stopped? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Contributions" that are solely links are not (to me) contributions. I've posted a comment on the user's talk page.  Thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 11:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

http://sss.coralliving.com


Editors: -- SiobhanHansa 00:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

relevantsearchscotland.co.uk and ayrshirescotland.com

 * Accounts:


 * Link:


 * Related links:


 * Ad-sense account (on both domains above):
 * ca-pub-0249863214531455

Can someone else take a look at these links? The parent URL appears to be a search consolidator or travel site of some sort. The ship information is marginally useful, but to me would be more appropriate as a ref rather than an EL; but in most cases it is redundant to information already cited for references, so not needed. I'm interrested in other opinions before I do anything with more of these links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The only accounts that have added this link to Wikipedia have done no other editing so it does look like spam. However some of the links have remained on the pages for a couple of years and gone through one or more revisions of the external links list so regular editors have seen the link and appear to have considered it worth keeping on several occasions.  The link has been removed from a a few other pages so there's no consensus that it's always a good link.  I personally think, at least for the cruise ship articles, that the site gives little information that isn't readily available at other links provided.  I can't see how it could be used as a ref - there's nothing about the site that suggests it could be considered a reliable source for this type of information. Perhaps posting to WikiProject Ships will get more knowledgeable input about the value of the link itself and the input of informed editors on which pages it is actually valuable.  Given its longevity on some pages, simply cleaning it out without a heads up could lead to unnecessary drama. -- SiobhanHansa 09:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to have deleted the link to http://www.relevantsearchscotland.co.uk/ships/255oasisofthedseas.html that contained data on the ships proposed cruise routes. 20th Century Ships is regarded by many ship historians as more than marginally useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.209.97 (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * From which article, and how long ago? Found it on the MS Oasis of the Seas article - it was deleted by another editor with an edit summary saying that the addition added nothing new (nothing not already covered by other ref tags and ELs), so it appears that others beside myself do question the value of the link.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

www.spinoffreport.co.uk
User talk:92.10.98.234 moved to User talk:Jimmyosman123 Mion (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)



Monitor it. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 20:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible Link Spam - Don't know how to resolve
I come to you, oh guardians of the Grand Encyclopedia, for advice on how to deal with someone I consider a link spammer but I'm unsure of how to proceed. See User talk:EagleFalconn and User talk:EagleFalconn. Basically I've been working on Acid dissociation constant and User:71.160.182.120 added a link to their pKa prediction software to the EL. I removed it because it was irrelevant to the article, and checked the IP contrib history and saw that it'd been done to several articles so I removed those links too. IP is now complaining of unfair treatment and has made an article about his company citing a couple papers and making some broad claims that I find suspect. I was going to AfD the article but I wasn't sure and figured I'd let an expert handle it. I think one of the first things that needs to happen is the removal of all the commercial links that the IP complains about in those articles. I tend to agree with the IP that those shouldn't necessarily be there. I leave it in your hands, I'll be watching the page if you need anything from me. EagleFalconn (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Meta help and IRC help
I am going to refresh this. Although also here there is still quite some help needed to keep everything clean, I would also like people to consider helping at the spam blacklist at meta. Also, for those who use IRC, help would also be appreciated in the IRC channels (where the bots report in near real-time), see the talk channel. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

angelfire.com
After seeing someone spamming:



today, I decided to add the whole of angelfire.com to XLinkBot (\bangelfire\.com\b).



(the linksearch here and on meta in the IP show how many are (recognised as) 'coi' 'spammed'; there are 3468 additions of 'angelfire.com' and 3587 additions of '*.angelfire.com' recorded in the last approx. 10 months).

Just noted here as a record. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

http://sss.InternetEvolution.com
Individual edits don't seem bad - though content is a little hypish and site does not seem to be particularly reliable as a source. If they were one off edits I would be inclined to leave them until an article was being seriously worked on. But the editors involved only seem to make edits that add content supported by citations from this website and I haven't found any instances of the site added by any regular editors. This looks like promotion of the website rather than development of sound encyclopedic articles.



I have not yet gone through all the current instances of this link so there may be more editors.
 * - despite numerous warnings editors continues.

One editor has received numerous warnings but has not modified his/her editing. Wonder if this is something we should consider blacklisting.

-- SiobhanHansa 01:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The activity seems similar to the edits in which links to blog sites such as Gadgets Reviews and InfoNIAC get added. Factoids are awkwardly added to related articles, seemingly in an attempt to justify the insertion of a link to a website as a citation. The edits themselves are generally poor in quality, as are the blog posts that are referenced. The blog posts tend to regurgitate news and commentary previously published elsewhere, without attributing or acknowledging sources. While technically not without value, in terms of verifiability, I consider such activity to be a net negative. I would not oppose a blacklisting. Dancter (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It also seems that the editors mentioned are the subjects of a sockpuppet investigation: Requests for checkuser/Case/Anvil Media Inc. Dancter (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked at the sockpuppet investigation but as far as I can tell these accounts haven't actually been linked in the Anvil Media case. The editing action of these 11 seem to make a clear case for their own meat/sock puppet ring though.  I'm cleaning the whole lot out.  I've left them all a level 4 warning.  Propose that if another link is added we blacklist the domain.  -- SiobhanHansa 00:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. I was basing my observation solely on the listing of the Alusayman account, though upon closer examination, the patterns don't match. Dancter (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to make it sound like a correction! I appreciated the heads up - I hadn't even seen that Alusayman was listed in that case until you pointed it out.  -- 08:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I received an email over the weekend from User:AnotherBlowhard who said he was Terry Sweeney, chief editor of InternetEvolution. I've asked him to join the discussion here. -- SiobhanHansa 01:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Terry Sweeney here, editor in chief of tInternetEvolution.com. I got flagged on this thread by someone who's apparently one of the "editors" on this site, and by Wikipedia's definition, a spammer.


 * I've read your definition of spamming and using Wikipedia for promotion etc. I believe that I understand the goals of creating this online encyclopedia. But I've also seen enough citations all across Wikipedia to other technology-oriented publications (Computerworld, InformationWeek, etc.). So I'm now trying to understand what's prompting the comments here, as well as what's the best way to work with Wikipedia.


 * One comment in particular was tough to parse; in re Internet Evolution, "...content is a little hypish and site does not seem to be particularly reliable as a source." That's a surprising aside, given we employ a fulltime editorial staff of reporters, editors and copyeditors; we're also part of a $1+ billion U.K.-based publisher, not Joe Webgeek, tapping it out on a dialup connection above the garage in his spare time.


 * On the rare occasion we get something wrong, we move quickly and publicly to correct it. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales deemed us reliable enough to sit down for a chat just a few months ago. (http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=152655) Mr. Wales has also come to be considered a friend of the publication, and a source we've called on repeatedly for quotations, reality checks, and perspective.


 * Perhaps the term "reliable" has a different connotation in the realm of the encyclopedic; either way, I'd welcome any elaboration or insight to understand the source of this objection.


 * Another respondent made this provocative statement: "The blog posts tend to regurgitate news and commentary previously published elsewhere, without attributing or acknowledging sources."


 * Internet Evolution counts opinion as one of its cornerstones -- original opinions, not material published elsewhere or re-purposed from annual reports or recent op-eds. But we do report original news as well. Sadly, we can't break all the news in the world; still we managed to get out front on YouTube crashing (http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=466&doc_id=147025) and Yahoo gnashing (http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=466&doc_id=151997).


 * Regarding the attribution and source acknowledgment claim: Apparently underlying URLs that we (and countless other publications like the New York Times or wire services like Associated Press) use to link to a story, issue or fact aren't showing up on the Wikipedia radar. If I've misread or misunderstood the intent of that posting, again, I'd welcome clarification.


 * I'm aware that a big chunk of the issues arising here stem from colliding lexicons. I hope you'll take this note in the spirit it's intended: To avoid miscommunication or creating needless work for Wikipedians, and also using the power and reach of the Internet for dialog and dissemination of information.
 * AnotherBlowhard (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please take a look at our Conflict of Interest guideline. Your employees should not be adding links and references to your company's publications. This has been pointed out multiple times in the messages left for them on their talk pages. As well, these messages have also included links to our Spam guideline; when such conflict-of-interest behaviour continues, we consider it spam.


 * If we ask people to stop and they don't, it really puts us in a bind. Perhaps you can get them to stop as we don't want to have to blacklist your domain; we'd like to leave this domain available for neutral, disinterested editors to use as a reference.


 * Can we count on you to fix this? -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Our staffers are following this thread closely, so no worries there. Our ability to control the online activities of non-employees is obviously limited. The larger issue here seems to be the volume/frequency of posting Internet Evolution links. Are you saying that any additional linking to Internet Evolution will result in blacklisting? Appreciate any clarifications. AnotherBlowhard (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Edits that appear to be added as part of an attempt to get links to InternetEvolution into Wikipedia will likely result in blacklisting. But if one of our regular editors happens to add a link because they think it's the best way to source or provide that information for our readers - that obviously doesn't fit our definition of spamming so would not trigger that sort of action.  -- SiobhanHansa 12:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.goobiz.com/

 * Links


 * Accounts
 * SPA
 * Likely COI with goobiz founder and author Birol Berkem


 * All accounts have been warned. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bruno rodin has continued, but only in Service-oriented architecture. Hopefully he'll respond to the warnings soon. --Ronz (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He's finally contacted me. Hopefully, this will be closed soon. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.visitworcestershire.org

 * Spammers

Continuing to spam despite XLinkBot. Likely blacklist fodder. MER-C 11:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked, persistent. BL next I think. -- Herby  talk thyme 11:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.marinews.com

 * Spammers

Yet another spammer who ignores XLinkBot. MER-C 12:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverted again, blocked again. Blacklist if the message doesn't get through this time. -- Herby  talk thyme 11:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

New Link in Corfu article
www.corfuvisit.net Corfu Island - Link appears to be official but has tourist info such as hotels and tours. Your advice would be appreciated on the article talkpage here. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Link removed & will comment on the talk page. Cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 11:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

CCNACERTIFICATIONGUIDE.COM
{{{LinkSummary|CCNACERTIFICATIONGUIDE.COM}} Link spamming to Cisco Career Certifications from different IPs like this. the small letter URL was blackisted and they continue to add the link in capital letters. Please black list the URL --  Tinu  Cherian  - 02:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

hiitsource.com and others
A concerted effort over more than a year to get related links (pub-6352184038900190 or registered to the same person) onto Wikipedia.

Websites:

Accounts:

Editor is using multiple IPs so will request blacklisting. -- SiobhanHansa 16:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.dollyfans.com/
Repeated adding of the site to external links of several doll articles, beginning yesterday with an IP user (who stopped after two template messages) and today from a newly registered user.

Link

Users

Sample diffs:



Sample diffs:

Siawase (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Drachs
User:Drachs is upset that I have reverted links to his web site from several articles. Fullest discussion is at Talk:Sea cucumber. I slipped up and missed posting a uw-spam1 warning on his talk page, but I have since pointed him to the policies and guidelines. I'm requesting that someone else review my actions. -- Donald Albury 18:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

http://sss.wellsphere.com
Editors: -- SiobhanHansa 01:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.visitrenotahoe.com/

 * Links


 * Accounts

The IP has been adding this link to multiple article, including referencing info (minor issue as it shows "wikipedia" as the referencer - not sure if that's allowed under WP:ELNO #17), is adding emphasis to the links in the external links sections to improve visibility over other links, and is inserting the link within the body of article (including the replacement of other links, which themselves shouldn't be in the body of the article). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.woodwardcruisecountdown.com/

 * Links


 * Accounts

Repeated re-insertion of same spam link into article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Added another SPA IP posting the link today. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

http://spam.royalawardi.org http://spam.mselahi.org

 * Spam pages
 * royal peace award
 * royal peace award
 * royal peace award
 * royal peace award


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

Some shared IPs, see.

MER-C 12:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)