Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Jul 1

BLP Section Removed
by  MBisanz  talk

Spam light district

 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers
 * Spammer has vandalized previous link records.
 * Spammer has vandalized previous link records.

MER-C 09:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Other accounts used in the past:


 * Possibly related domain:
 * http://seduction-stories.com


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

populardata.com
Complaint originally filed at: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PopularData‎, please see discussion therein.
 * http://populardata.com

To summarize: User 65.182.233.93 has been downright insistent on having a ZIP code database obtainable from populardata.com included as an external link on the ZIP Code and Canadian postal code articles. When the user registered, it selected the name PopularData, and has admitted being the creator of the databases obtainable from populardata.com. The user, both logged in and out, has several times added the link. See as an example. The role of 72.11.123.50 is less clear, but that user, who has been editing for nearly eight months, chooses only to edit to add (or support adding) the populardata.com

Now, to their (assuming there is a "they") credit, at long last, they seem to have gotten the message that this wasn't the way to go about things, and to have a discussion on talk page. This followed somewhat abusive comments from both users. At the suggestion of EdJohnston, I've brought the discussion of the sockpuppet issue over here, so that the possibly improper spamming issue can be dealt with. I don't know if you want to take any action, or just hope they've gotten the message.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's probably just one person. I think you've made it clear what our rules are. If he spams links again, please let us know.


 * Thanks for the effort you've put into this; if there is further trouble, we've got the background already documented.-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Jupiter Infomedia spam on Wikipedia

 * Spammers

MER-C 09:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 7 warnings, 5 blocks


 * More spam domains:
 * Google Adsense ID: 8040656654961143
 * Google Adsense ID: 8040656654961143
 * Google Adsense ID: 8040656654961143
 * Google Adsense ID: 8040656654961143


 * Related domains:


 * Domain registration
 * Jupiter Infomedia Pvt. Ltd.
 * 336, Laxmi Plaza
 * Laxmi Industrial Estate
 * New Link Road
 * Andheri (W)
 * Mumbai 400053
 * Tel: 91-22-2634 1691 / 2 / 3
 * Fax: 91-22-2634 1693


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.backdropsource.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 10:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Related domains:
 * http://spam.backdropsource.co.uk
 * http://spam.backdropsource.de
 * http://spam.backdropsource.fr
 * http://spam.bpworks.com
 * http://spam.carotechs.com
 * See:
 * http://www.carotechs.com/contact-us.aspx
 * http://www.clik2complaints.co.uk/modules/newbb/viewpost.php?uid=62
 * http://spam.tallcall.com
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See:
 * http://www.carotechs.com/contact-us.aspx
 * http://www.clik2complaints.co.uk/modules/newbb/viewpost.php?uid=62
 * http://spam.tallcall.com
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

external link in bates method article.
LS,

See the paragraph 10 spam links in the discussion page of the bates method article.

The website : http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/eyequack.html contains 10 links to commercial sites. See below which pop up on every page of this site !

Vonage: Save money on unlimited phone service. Extraordinary value. Free 30-day trial. Netflix: Free 2-week trial of DVD rentals by mail; over 85,000 titles available. Amazon Books: Internet's leading source of books, electronics, tools, toys, and many other consumer goods. Believe: A hilarious movie about multilevel marketing. ConsumerLab.com: Evaluates the quality of dietary supplement and herbal products. Healthgrades: Check your doctors' training, board certifications, and disciplinary actions. OnlyMyEmail: Award-winning anti-spam services. Herbal Medicine, 3rd edition. Excellent reference book, discount-priced. 10 Types: Website design, development, and hosting with superb technical support.

At the moment this link is accepted as an external link.

Is this acceptable ? The information which is valuable should be used and refered to in the article itself according to wikipedia standards. Still the links is accepted as an important external link. See also the given arguments in the discussion page. Gladly read your feedback.

Seeyou (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Quackwatch is generally considered a good link. It looks like it's been already discussed at:
 * Talk:Bates method
 * Talk:Bates method
 * Talk:Bates method
 * Talk:Bates method


 * You're reporting the quackwatch.com link as spam; did the site-owner add this to that article as part of a campaign of adding multiple Quackwatch links around Wikipedia? If so, this WikiProject is interested in tracking their addition; otherwise, the use of this link is an editorial decision to be resolved at Talk:Bates method with other editors. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

monkeysee.com

 * Spammers

Jonobennett (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also:
 * b:en:Special:Contributions/71.166.245.144
 * Spammed 27 June 2008 after the first entry above
 * b:en:Special:Contributions/206.59.67.74
 * and maybe:
 * b:en:Special:Contributions/206.59.67.74
 * and maybe:
 * and maybe:
 * and maybe:
 * and maybe:
 * and maybe:
 * and maybe:
 * and maybe:


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

spam.jumplead.net
A "function band" probably doesn't come close to being a notable musical aspect for an area.

Edits: 

spam.ajmerchishty.com spam.moinuddinchishty.com

 * Previous incidents
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive May 1


 * Sites spammed

The following spam is mouldy.




 * Spammers

MER-C 13:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Still spamming. MER-C 12:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.greekshops.com

 * domain


 * editors


 * Can someone look at Egtheod's use of this link? He's using it as a reference, where it does have some value.  I'm guessing that there are some music article standards that would apply here as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how much value it has as a reference. Looking at Kathreftis, all that is being cited is that its the fifth studio album for the artist.  But I can't imagine that there isn't a non-commercial source that one could cite for that fact.  Looks like gross spamming to me.  Montco (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

About.com
Why is About.com and in particular their sub pages referred to on almost all pages as further reading when the site is heavily commercial and full of affiliate links?

Furthermore a great deal of their affiliate links are the text link in content type which deceive the visitor and certainly dont "add value to the visitor experience".

As a final point some of their content is even taken from Wikipedia and added to their site then tagged with a "Copyright About.com" note...

Mods / Admin, If I´ve added this in the wrong place please move to another area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.170.46.90 (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question.


 * We've talked about these links before and I think we've tended to be overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of the issue; we have almost 11,000 of these links, many added by innocent editors.


 * I think they're usually of poor quality since the content is self-published. The about.com "guides" (editors) have financial incentives to drive traffic to their pages.


 * They are actually a well ran site. They have ads to get money. Many sites have ads. What's wrong with that? They have employees that actually are paid to run the site and keep it updated. It's an informational site that has a lot of views a day; its reliable. Y5nthon5a (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Like this guy that is one of the editors. Look at what work he's done in the past. It's obvious this site doesnt just hire nobodies. http://rap.about.com/mbiopage.htm Y5nthon5a (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don´t object to ads on sites, everyone who has any site with traffic has to pay the bill someway, what I do object to is the fact that most of these "information pages" don´t actually add anything to the original wikipedia article, whatever the guys qualifications.

With so many different editors the content varies wildly in its quality. Some pages I´ve seen are simply Wikipedia > 5 lines of repeated text > In line text link to affiliate! how does that help the visitor?

To me it appears that everyday smaller sites are thrown out for doing similar things but one of the biggest culprites does it day after day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.170.46.90 (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Previous discussions
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Dec 1
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Jan 1.5 see comment about "protective cover"
 * Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 15
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive211
 * Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 15
 * Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 16
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive May & Jun
 * Template:About.com
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Aug
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive59
 * Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive40
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive51
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

links to commercial sites
Several of the links are for commercial sites selling products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.40.73 (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Top-host.atspace, Threehosts, Newsoftheweird
Inserted on a regular basis by various IPs. Same pattern, same surrounding text, as threehosts.com, which is already blacklisted. ,, , , , , ,.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanchardb (talk • contribs)


 * , see also WP:SBL. MER-C 02:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

GameAnyone.com
Domain

Spammer

GameAnyone.com has been spamming multiple video game articles with links to it's "reviews" in the External Links section. This editor, 67.181.228.6 has been the primary spammer of this domain. He has been warned many times in the past for spamming but has continued to do so. If you view his contributions, all his edits have been to spam this domain.


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

spam.dermatologistsnyc.com
A number of articles have been spammed by (almost) as many SPAs with external links to dermatologistsnyc.com. Diffs:              


 * Domain


 * Accounts

The user names and edits make it extremely likely that the accounts involved are sock puppets. (Should I start a sock puppetry case? A RFCU?) --Bonadea (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Three more spammers:


 * That's enough. . MER-C 02:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Didn't notice that there was an ongoing case here, but 66.65.22.135 hit Manhattan earlier today. Montco (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Smokingsection.com
A Hip Hop site that it just fan made, it's not a reliable link. Whoever owns this site keeps putting their reviews on the bottom of the pages of hip hop albums, and even IF it was allowed, they are NOT putting the reviews in the right place. Y5nthon5a (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

totallyonline.co.uk
Google Adsense ID: 2556340643393239
 * Spam domains:
 * http://www.totallyguildford.co.uk/
 * http://www.totallynorwich.co.uk/
 * http://www.totallyclapham.co.uk/
 * http://www.totallyrichmond.co.uk/
 * http://www.totallyclapham.co.uk/
 * http://www.totallyrichmond.co.uk/
 * http://www.totallyrichmond.co.uk/


 * Related domain:
 * http://www.totallyonline.co.uk

-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Account:


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

spam.eclipse-china.cn

 * Previous incidents
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Oct 2
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008 Archive Mar 2.5
 * m:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/10
 * m:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2008/03


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see.
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see.


 * On Chinese Wikipedia only this time.
 * On Chinese Wikipedia only this time.

(COIBot pile). MER-C 03:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

britishhiphop.co.uk

 * IP has added around a dozen links to at britishhiphop.co.uk. Unsure if there is a larger spamming problem. ~ Eóin (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * IP has added around a dozen links to at britishhiphop.co.uk. Unsure if there is a larger spamming problem. ~ Eóin (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * IP has added around a dozen links to at britishhiphop.co.uk. Unsure if there is a larger spamming problem. ~ Eóin (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Mohammed 2121
Repeated recreation of spam pages. As of now, only this and this survived among his contributions. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.argotistonlin.co.uk



 * Articles

The Argotist Online The Argotist The argotist online
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.granta.com

 * Articles
 * Articles

Granta <br
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.businessethicsresources.com
Adsense pub-6377355118094106
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.financeleadhouse.com

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 08:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

spam.jhelumsoft.net
Adsense pub-0371265814726923


 * Sites spammed


 * Related domains


 * Spammers
 * Spammer has been moving links up.
 * Spammer has been moving links up.
 * Spammer has been moving links up.
 * Spammer has been moving links up.
 * Spammer has been moving links up.
 * Spammer has been moving links up.
 * Spammer has been moving links up.
 * Spammer has been moving links up.
 * Spammer has been moving links up.



MER-C 10:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Greekferries Club SA and Kavi Club SA http://spam.eco.gr
http://spam.greekhotels.gr http://spam.greece-ferries.com
 * Sites spammed

http://spam.kavi.gr http://spam.greece-unlimited.gr
 * Related domains


 * Spammers

MER-C 12:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.gresham.ac.uk
Gresham College Gresham Professor of Commerce Gresham Professor of Divinity
 * Accounts
 * Accounts


 * Web-site and Events Co-ordinator: James Franklin
 * JAMES FRANKLIN JOINS THE GRESHAM TEAM
 * which proves that he's editing using his real name! Nunquam Dormio (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also proves Jamesfranklingresham is a role account for the sole and primary purpose of promoting Gresham College in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. --Hu12 (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cross Wiki/ multiple project spamming


 * http://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_Arnold&diff=prev&oldid=1720659
 * http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_Arnold&diff=prev&oldid=40245170
 * http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amanda_Bynes&diff=prev&oldid=20196046
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_Arnold&diff=prev&oldid=179000269
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raphael_Thoene&diff=prev&oldid=178999381
 * http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_Arnold&diff=prev&oldid=13686524
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_Arnold&diff=prev&oldid=24105303
 * http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_Arnold&diff=prev&oldid=10551248 --Hu12 (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hu12, if you have time to do all this research, then you have time to actually talk to people. A lot of editors have looked at your mass reversions and decided they were inappropriate. Links to lectures by acknowledged experts on the subjects of the articles they were introduced to are by-and-large appropriate. DuncanHill (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hu12, It would be helpful if you gave an example of a link to a lecture that you feel is inappropriate to the page's topic. The ones I have looked at so far seem perfectly appropriate. If one isn't, then editors have had over a year to delete some of them. You have arbitrarily deleted all of them without providing us with your rationale. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I've checked the opera articles on my watch list this morining and have re-added the links removed by User:Hu12 in the last 24 hours, e.g. Dom Sébastien, La fanciulla del West. The links are to a university an academic institution web site that has no ads on it. They were links to pages with valuable supplemental information to the articles (lecture notes, audio recordings of lectures, etc.) by one of the leading experts in the field, Professor Roger Parker of King's College London. I have re-added them. Frankly, I think the mass removal and instant blocking (with no warning) of User:Jamesfranklingresham is rather precipitous. Wikipedia should be encouraging participation from academics, not branding them as spammers and blocking them immediately. It would also be helpful to actually look at the web pages linked to to see if the information is valuable or ask for expert advice from the appropriate Wikipedia project. I know spam is a problem, but this is Wikpedia biting off its metaphorical nose to spite its face. In case you're wondering, I'm a retired academic myself, but I've never worked at Gresham College. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: I have now verified and restored the links to the following classical music and opera articles in addition to the ones above: Edward Elgar, Roger Parker (particularly bizarre, it's the faculty page of the article's subject!), Nabucco, Ivor Gurney, Arthur Bliss, String Quartet No. 19 (Mozart)‎, Constant Lambert, William Walton, String Quartet No. 2 (Bartók)‎, Joseph Haydn, String Quartet No. 9 (Beethoven), Arthur Sullivan, Benjamin Britten, Requiem (Berlioz), String Quartet (Debussy). Note that many of these links had been added a year ago and were all deleted today. In one case, another editor in the interim had used it as a reference for the article and moved it to the Refs section. It's removal today by User:Hu12 left the article without references. I've now spent nearly  an hour restoring the links and commenting here. The remainder of the articles are outside my area of expertise, so I'm not going to restore them, but frankly, someone here should at least notify the talk pages of those articles about what's happened and why. They are all valuable sources for article development. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note Jamesfranklingresham started editing on 16 July 2007. In that time, if the other editors of each page believed his links were spam, they would have removed them. Hu12 has done an arbitrary purge today, deleting them all in about 45 minutes. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If you can't link to an academic institution such as Gresham College, who could you link to? The blocking of Jamesfranklingresham is arbitrary and unjust. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree! It's bizarre! He should at least be unblocked so he can respond. Perhaps we can find an alternative way for him to notify us about further links what could be added without him falling afoul of the spam police. I'll be happy to add them myself. Please unblock him. Voceditenore (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not spam, the block is a bad one, and the removal of the links denies editors and readers a useful resource. DuncanHill (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Question Has the Gresham College web site now been blacklisted? What are other editors to do in the future if they want to reference articles to new material there? It has numerous free lecture transcripts from expert scholars in a variety of fields. Voceditenore (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See also: Gresham college lectures and I have unblocked an alleged spammer below. Voceditenore (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Lot's of edits by user:Hu12 have been reverted today by me and by several other users. Mine started with his edit to squaring the circle. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good lord, Hu12. You made a mistake.  Stop making it worse by beating this dead horse.  Friday (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Gresham college lectures
See User talk:Hu12. That user is reverting a large number of additions of links to lectures by professors at Gresham College. In particular, the one at squaring the circle was by a respected professor of mathematics. There's no reason to consider it "spam" as far as I can see. I reverted that edit, and I see that others have done so with other edits by that user. I followed a link from that user's page to this WikiProject. I hope that's not typical of what this project does. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * More helpful now to see WP:ANI as Hu12 has removed the relevant threads from his talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, see this comment from Hu12 at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
 * "I'm currently on the road dealing with several family deaths, and have limited access to the internet. Lack of speedy responses during this time is to be expected."
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have unblocked an alleged spammer
I have unblocked User:Jamesfranklingresham, who was accused of spamming. External links to on-topic lectures by professors are not spam. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * can people check the reverts, assess the content and re-add if they feel it is fine. All of the links I have checked so far are fantastic. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * not some of the ones I've seen, such as

These are just individual lectures; sure, by authorities, but not necessarily the sort of distinctive links that justify inclusion, unless they can be shown to be better than any other available source. (I saw some good ones to, like a conference). Many external links to individual lectures by professors  certainly can be  spam; there are now probably half a dozen on each of thousands of  topics in Wikipedia, & the way the web is going, there will soon by 10 or 100 times more. The standard we have,m of a uniquely comprehensive important resource remains appropriate. There is no inherent reason to think that the ones given at Gresham are better than elsewhere. If there are, I think it needs to be shown in each individual case. Perhaps a case can be made for these lectures being sufficiently well vetted that they can be used as specific references, or even as general article references--that would be better than external links. I like the citizendium approach of separate sub pages for lists of relevant links and sources--but then, they have a system for true expert review of which are the suitable ones. DGG (talk) 04:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "'The Origins of the NHS', by Professor Berridge, Gresham College, 14th April 2008 (available for video, audio and text download)
 * 'Conquest and Disease or Colonisation and Health', lecture by Professor Frank Cox on the history of tropical disease, given at Gresham College, 17th September 2007 (available for download as video and audio files, as well as a text file).
 * Which articles are those links actually in? DuncanHill (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The link placement may or may not be spam. However the placement of the link seems to be in direct contravention of COI policy.  This is the website co-ordinator adding links to the website he co-ordinates.  Or am I missing something? -- Herby  talk thyme 10:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And the editor has now been informed of policy, and has been offered help by experienced editors in contributing positively. Links have been replaced by editors unconnected with Gresham College. I think it is also reasonable to assume that his future contributions (if any - I don't think we have done a very good job of embracing academe here) will be watched closely by several editors, so why don't we all relax a little and try to move along? DuncanHill (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, agree with DH 100% (this time :) )--BozMo talk 10:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.sermonaudio.com

 * Spammers

I don't feel like following this up (too tired), but the manner in which these links are added is starting to look spammy. Let's see how this gets used. MER-C 12:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

eott.com

 * Spammers

IP does not edit frequently enough to warrant a block, but consistently inserts these spam links when is on-wiki. There is not useful content at this domain that should be included on WP. Karanacs (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

locateadoc.com

 * Spammers
 * User:Bettyboop720 so far --BozMo talk 15:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Added to XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

spam.creditflux.com Redux
Referencing a similar spam attack from last year Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Aug

Dropping links for this credit derivtive newsletter across a number of topics today.


 * Spammer

Montco (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

PictureTalk related spamming, vandalism and defacing

 * Note I am involved in the same marketplace as the information I provided below (I watch for abuse in this space), hence my disclosure of it. GaryECampbell (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)




 * 206.80.0.98 edits and User:Diegotorquemada may be related.
 * Both are primary contributors to PictureTalk
 * Both are deleting other editor's contributions, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Web_conferencing&diff=222867360&oldid=222772200
 * Additional vandalism (defacing): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Web_conferencing&diff=218884784&oldid=218882688
 * Spamming marketplace article diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Web_conferencing&diff=222771745&oldid=222614890
 * Spamming marketplace article diff:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_collaborative_software&diff=prev&oldid=206147908
 * Spamming competitor diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unified_communications&diff=prev&oldid=201646227
 * Spamming competitor diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raindance_Communications&diff=prev&oldid=201645608
 * Spamming competitor diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adobe_Acrobat_Connect&diff=prev&oldid=201648342
 * Spamming competitor diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Office_Live_Meeting&diff=prev&oldid=201647415
 * Advertising: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PictureTalk&diff=prev&oldid=210881530

etc. - GaryECampbell (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC) - above information updated on July 3 - GaryECampbell (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate editor, therefore inappropriate links??
Suppose it is considered inappropriate for a certain person to be the one to add a link to the XYZ Society's web site, because he's the vice-president of the XYZ Society. Apparent conflict of interest. Linkspam, maybe. Maybe. But suppose if some neutral editor had added them, it might have been considered appropriate because the article was about the XYZ Society.

Should we then say "The link is inappropriate"? Should we ban all links to the XYZ Society's site even when put there by someone with no conflict? That's what user:Orangemike is telling us at Wikipedia talk:Spam. He wrote "none of these links was appropriate". He did not write
 * "user:jamesfranklingresham was an inappropriate person to be the one to add these links because he works for that organization". :
 * "user:jamesfranklingresham was an inappropriate person to be the one to add these links because he works for that organization". :

Instead he said the links themselves were inappropriate! (In this case, the organization was Gresham College.)

He also said that person was "not the best judge" of whether the links were appropriate. To that I can only say: "So what"? Most people who edit Wikipedia articles are not the best judge of what should be there. And yet they contribute good things. Later editors, often better judges of appropriateness, improve on their work without deleting it outright. If someone is not the best judge of what should be in the article, the right thing is for someone is a better judge to look at what they wrote, and decide on that basis whether it was appropriate. The solution is not for someone who knows nothing about the subject to say "We know this person is not the best judge of this subject since he has a conflict of interests, therefore whatever he wrote (I don't know what it was and I don't care and I don't understand the subject of the article and I don't want to understand it) is inappropriate."

Wikipedia's policies on spam and on conflicts of interest are supposed to serve a purpose of improving the encyclopedia. If the policies conflict with that purpose, then the policies must go. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you may be reading too much bad faith into such a small thing as a poorly worded and unclear comment. I've had a bunch of run-ins with OrangeMike in the past and I consider too many of his edits to be over-deletionist and over-hasty. However his intentions are broadly good and he's not acting out of malice.


 * This link addition was a good edit, done by someone who certainly could be seen to have a CoI concern. IMHO, he should have added it, but also made their COI clear in the commit comment. That way another editor (such as OrangeMike) could then satisfy themselves as to the link's quality (as they probably do anyway) and could also be reassured that this wasn't any sort of underhand COI concealment that might deserve further investigation. That's a better solution than an editor avoiding adding good content because they can't face the hassle of over-reactions to it!


 * As it was, I think removing the link was a bad move, albeit done with the best of intentions. It's fixed now. Can we all go home? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Famouswhy.com
...and others. The above IPs added one or two links each to this site, all today. I think we have a spammer with a dynamic IP.
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

Kelly hi! 13:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The range is way too diverse for dynamic IPs. I'd probably assume open proxies if there are enough IPs, else hired help.  Either way seems a blacklist candidate. Caomhin (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

build- .com
One of my bots picked up:


 * (IP 66.43.58.227)

Looking at the users contributions, there seems to be more:


 * (IP 66.43.55.104)

User:



Goes far back, most is before database. Both now on XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed policy change
At Wikipedia talk:spam, I've proposed a policy along the following lines: If someone posts multiple links to his or her employer's web site or the like, that's reason to SUSPECT something inappropriate, but must not be considered conclusive UNTIL the actual CONTENT of the links is looked at.

For example, if an employee of Encyclopedia Britannica posts 200 external links to Encyclopedia Britannica articles, each one strictly on topic, that should not be viewed the same way as if someone posts links to a shopping mall web site in articles about 16th-century poetry.

That's very nearly what happened in the case of user:jamesfranklingresham, who got blocked without suitable warnings, when the links he added were about in the spirit of the hypothetical Britannica links above. They were on-topic links to lectures by respected professors.

Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:spam. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

James Last Not sure how to deal with this one
Came across this on my regular rounds.

The edit history of this page seems to show a revert war going over several months. To be frank, I haven't even reviewed the site (jameslastfan.de) as this affair seems to have descended into such madness that the content is almost irrelevant at this point.

Several IP's (and these are just the ones from June 2008):
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/84.188.209.117
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/84.188.209.117
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/84.188.209.117
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/84.188.209.117
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/84.188.209.117
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/84.188.209.117
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/84.188.209.117
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/84.188.209.117
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/84.188.209.117
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/84.188.209.117

have been adding a fansite to the artist which are summarily reverted. Warnings have been issued inconsistently by the reverters but two of the IP's have been temporarily blocked.

Most recently, the link is now accompanied by commentary
 * 
 * 

At this point, this has become a violation on so many levels from spam to 3RR to vandalism. My only thought would be to blacklist the site since temp blocks don't appear to be working.

Montco (talk) 06:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)



Also:


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/84.188.242.64
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/84.188.242.64


 * Three above spammers hit fi.wikipedia.
 * Three above spammers hit fi.wikipedia.
 * Three above spammers hit fi.wikipedia.
 * Three above spammers hit fi.wikipedia.


 * Fun edit-warring on da.wikipedia
 * More edit-warring, this time on fi.wikipedia

MER-C 09:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Pan India Network
Adsense pub-3860718101961410


 * Sites spammed


 * Related domains

Plus more (from http://www.panindia.in/network.asp )

Each of the main online portal will be supplemented with the dedicated educational portal for the respective place. Viz: Bharatonline.in will be supplemented by indiaeducation.net delhionline.in with delhieducation.net and so on.

We, have duly obtained prime online domain names for other Indian state capitals and major cities and separate sites for these also can be added in the future if the need arises.


 * Spammers

MER-C 11:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Webooks Network http://spam.webooks.co.uk

 * Sites spammed


 * Related domains


 * Spammers

MER-C 13:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

ads for prescription drugs sales and other dubbious pages
keeps adding links to

which is a pointless digg-like with health related gossips,

and, more importantly, to these online prescription drugs sellers.

The links to the first and the last sites have been removed, but I think these domains require your attention. Zorbid (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Blacklisted, thanks -- Herby talk thyme 14:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

gardenmandy.com
Adsense pub-2302677126863467


 * Spammers

MER-C 12:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * - removed this entry from the page. -- Versa geek  05:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Plenty of ignored warnings: -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

76.93.93.177 felt the need to blank this section... MER-C 05:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"The Mesothelioma Society"
This recently spammed site adds nothing of value to our Mesothelioma article. I see zero useful, reliable content to supplement owhat we already have. It doesn't look like anyone else is linking to it (other than a comment spammer). Interestingly, a reader can't tell where this "Mesothelioma Society" is located or even, without a subpoena, who registered its domain name.


 * Domains:


 * Accounts adding one or more of these links:

See discussion at Talk:Mesothelioma -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ir ia unclear to me how much A.B. has even read this site. I have not found a better gloassary on any other site, their treatment discussion is excellent, and they have a good unbiased list of doctors. I am adding it back. Please do not delete this link again.

How does one deal with a user who does not know the difference between a spam site and a legitimate site?

JamesHMitchell (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The behaviour of adding back a link in such a way is seen as disruptive. The lack of transparency of the site is also a concern.  The fact that IPs have also placed links to the site is an issue.  Take them all together & you have behaviour which we describe as spamming. -- Herby  talk thyme 15:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Compare texts:
 * http://www.baronandbudd.com/legal_services/mesothelioma_asbestos/exposure "© 2008, Baron & Budd, P.C." (law firm)
 * www.themesotheliomasociety.com/risk-of-asbestos-exposure-job-sites-trades-health-hazards "Copyright © 2007 The Mesothelioma Society"
 * Compare the first 274 words
 * http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Sites-Types/mesothelioma (not copyrighted)
 * www.themesotheliomasociety.com/mesothelioma-asbestos-cancer-facts-and-figures
 * http://www.mesotheliomanews.com/blog/uncategorized/2008/02/28/update-on-the-proposed-asbestos-ban/ "© 2008, Baron & Budd, P.C." (again)
 * www.themesotheliomasociety.com/news-mesothelioma
 * hubpages.com/hub/Asbestos-Cancer---Facts-and-Historical-Information
 * www.themesotheliomasociety.com/about
 * compare third paragraph of the hubpages.com page
 * www.themesotheliomasociety.com/category/asbestos/asbestos-exposure
 * Compare the "Mesothelioma Society's" third paragraph with the hubpages page's second paragraph. The plagiarism even includes the same grammatical mistake: "All to often, individuals…"
 * See:
 * External links
 * Copyrights


 * When someone fills out the contact form requesting help on the "Society's" website, who gets it? It's worth a lot of money to American asbestos lawyers looking for new clients. The same is true for leads from the fentanyl and celebrex web sites; both drugs are now involved in expensive litigation in American courts. To get a sense of this "market" for web traffic and new legal clients, search Google for each of these terms, then look at the Google ads on the right side of the results page: Fentanyl, Mesothelioma.


 * Also, note the text of fentanyladvisor.com's privacy policy page:
 * www.fentanyladvisor.com/privacy
 * "Not Found… Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here."
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For a sense of the value of web leads, asbestos lawyers are reportedly paying $46.44 for just a click on some mesothelioma Adsense ads. Consider how much more they'd pay for the actual contact data of individuals seeking help?


 * See also this discussion among mesothelioma site-owners, keeping in mind that they are discussing primarily ad clicks, not much more valuable referral data (names, addresses, etc.)


 * Blacklist? Given my conflict with this person, I'm going to let someone else make the call. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

spam.zhiweinet.com
A couple of days ago saw adding a number of links to Chinese pages to various computing articles. They've been getting reverted but the user returned and added another today. Probably worth keeping an eye on this one and seeing if they take the hint/read the welcome.

Caomhin (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

spam.irixtech.com
Link added to Sun Certified Professional by new user  (first/only edit)

AdSense ID: pub-4790583614959846

Caomhin (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Crocodile Oil
This article was created by the SPA Rhysc. Most of the content of unreferenced jargon has been moved onto the talk page. You can see from the creator's user page that he is the importer of a product made from Crocodile oil. See the talk page for other information available on the web about this product. If you try searching for "Crocodile oil" you will discover that other that it has no notability. I tagged this page for speedy delete on grounds of spam, but the admin who looked at it didn't agree and recommended I take it through the AfD.  almost - instinct 11:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

University of Iowa student-developed ebook spam

 * CliffC (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pianomanusa and sheetmusicarchive.net
Allright, let's try this again. (and to a somewhat less degree ) have repeatedly been adding links to the site, sheetmusicarchive.net. Now, this site does have SOME free downloads, however, much of the music requires payment. In addition, this music -- public domain scans -- has the stipulation "PDF files made by the SMA are copyrighted by SheetMusicArchive.net, and may not be sold, re-distributed, or used to derive other PDF files, without express written authorization.", which I believe is incorrect for PD music; one furthur issue against it in the context of WP:EL is that there are a large number of completely free archives, where one can get most if not all of the music offered at SMA, thus making it redundant. At this point of going against consensus, from not just my own deleting of the links, but also User:87.9.235.22 as well as the admin who looked into it when I posted to ANI, User:SarekOfVulcan, I believe these two accounts are simply trying to draw people to their paysite to make money. I *did* post this before on this page but got no response; it's since gotten quite an amount worse, as it were, with a large number of reversions. Anyone? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * MER-C 08:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the site to the blacklist, but could one of you check Special:Linksearch/*.sheetmusicarchive.net? I'm not sure about reverting them here. --Erwin85 (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.pyroradio.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 11:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Caribbean festival spam
http://spam.caribbeanentertainment.com http://spam.afiwi.com http://spam.2pacvsbiggie.com http://spam.blackhistorydaily.com http://spam.westpalmbeachcarnival.com
 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 12:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A Kahn Design
Looks like a slow drip nuisance on the wiki here. Flagged through


 * Edit to Cosworth adding EL to fairly empty website
 * Edit to Bentley where Kahn Design claimed ownership of the company

User contributions also show a history of vandalism to assorted articles.

Associated domains:

AdSense ID: pub-4698752902234354

And annoyingly loud voice over when you load the design page (the mute is a black on black icon in the top right if anyone feels brave and checks with speakers on).

Caomhin (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Alpro entry
The entry on Alpro soy milk is a straightforward ad. Not cool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mssclarity (talk • contribs) 11:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC) mistress clarity (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell this article was written in good faith by regular editors, which is sort of surprising. Certainly needs cleanup. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.mojikan.com http://spam.morfdynamics.com

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 09:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User Mindv

 * This needs an admin's attention as the user is about ready for a block. Looks like a WP:COI as well. --Ronz (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He's admitted to the coi and is repeatedly trying to make an article for the product that he's trying to promote. --Ronz (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ... thrice-deleted (so far). — Athaenara  ✉  05:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Thanks for the help. --Ronz (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ... thrice-deleted (so far). — Athaenara  ✉  05:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Thanks for the help. --Ronz (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad enough to block, bad enough to blacklist: -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.themoviemap.com

 * Spammers

, but hasn't stopped yet... MER-C 10:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Related domain:
 * http://darrenlangley.com
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

user:Friarpuckrory


This user appears to be spamming, but it is not completely clear. They have added external reading and links to several articles. All are referenced back to a company called new.goldmau.com which appears to be a gold investment company. I thought I would get a second opinion before reverting anything. Arzel (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like the site is lifting copyrighted material without any attribution. The Soros article was printed in the Financial Times and on Soros website.  The Munger article appears to be from the appendix of a book called The Intelligent Investor.  In my opinion they all need to go.  It not just spam, its spam predicated on theft of copyrighted material.  Montco (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I see you got most of them before I saw this.  Arzel (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You may want to watch his contributions. I warned him (nicely) that the link was inappropriate.  If he or she is inncocently adding the material that should take care of it.  If the editor is associated with the site and continues, one of the admins here may have to have a more serious chat.  Montco (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Tracking link: http://goldmau.com

-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

spam.andrewleaning.com

 * Previous incidents
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive May 1
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Jun 1


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 11:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Still spamming. MER-C 14:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Earlier accounts:


 * Earlier domain used:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

spam.greenoptimistic.com
Domain registered less than 6 months ago suddenly worthy of 2 ELs on Fuel Cell? Unlikely.

Added by Earlier edit history includes: (Same AdSense ID)

AdSense: pub-6363402612711676

Caomhin (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, not finished writing the Defer yet but more info for completeness:

Also added by

Also added by that IP

rockon.ro redirects to with AdSense ID: pub-9427048641572074

Please note .ro domains. The green blogs above had .ro registrations.

Caomhin (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

More link dumping for rocon.ro by Caomhin (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have meta-blacklisted rockon.ro, as metalhead.ro and bestmusic.ro (all from the same farm) are already there. Persistent editors.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Mcic
has just added two generic Chicago links to every Chicago neighborhood article. Is there some automated way to undo all of these? Jpers36 (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

returnticketmusic.com
User:PZFUN created an article for a music blog Return Ticket Music and the proceeded to add review links to ~50 articles in the span of an hour. --William Graham talk 04:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like that user is Paul Zachary, a contributor to that site.--William Graham talk 04:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PZFUN is an establisahed user with nearly 8000 edits. Please do not speculate about their RL identity and extend some good faith. Has anyone tried to speak to them about the additions? Spartaz Humbug! 06:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I left a message on his talk page. --William Graham talk 14:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Being an established editor does not buy anyone a free ticket on spam or COI issues, but it does entitle them to a special measure of tact and discretion. After some early incidents, I now avoid templating their talk pages in favor of a more careful message -- that or sometimes, just a private e-mail.


 * I removed the links with the edit summaries such as this one:
 * "Remove link added in good faith but possibly with a conflict of interest; other, disinterested editors should feel free to reinsert if they think it's useful and meets WP:EL"
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

spam.developersbook.com
July 1st the following IP went through a variety of pages adding ELs/"references"

Worst offences were the replacing of more authoritative pages; i.e and  replaced Sun.com on the Sun Certified Training pages with own domain.

Caomhin (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

More goodies! In cleaning found the domain spammed in See Also sections of pages, frequently removed then replaced, and multiple links on most articles. Heavy blacklist candidate in my opinion.

All 3 IPs are registered in the Boston area. Domain registered behind a privacy screen and no contact details on website.

AdSense ID: pub-1170662245723648

Caomhin (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: 146.243.4.157 just tried to delete this section. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Now 98.217.132.149 (talk • contribs • count ) just tried to delete this section. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And again. Kelly  hi! 03:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

spam.kavlak.net

 * Spammers
 * Vandalized on the Turkish Wikipedia, see tr:Special:Contributions/77.92.142.85.
 * Vandalized on the Turkish Wikipedia, see tr:Special:Contributions/77.92.142.85.


 * On Turkish Wikipedia only see tr:Special:Contributions/77.92.142.85.
 * On Turkish Wikipedia only see tr:Special:Contributions/77.92.142.85.
 * On Turkish Wikipedia only see tr:Special:Contributions/77.92.142.85.
 * On Turkish Wikipedia only see tr:Special:Contributions/77.92.142.85.
 * On Turkish Wikipedia only see tr:Special:Contributions/77.92.142.85.

All spammers are blatant vandals see e.g.. MER-C 12:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * blanked this section. MER-C 07:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * blanked section Caomhin (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Google map search

 * This site is added as "Search satellite map at Maplandia.com" to a few articles and provides mainly an interface to search google maps. Oddly it's being added by an approved bot. In some cases, it does provide a valid reference. Some manual additions, such as Bošamarin seem useless though (Google maps finds the place, but maplandia doesn't). -- User:Docu

patnys.com again

 * Editors
 * - editor previously reported for spamming has continued to add the link, most recently 10 July 2008
 * - new editor, WP:SPA, has a coi, added link in May and June
 * - new editor, WP:SPA, added link in June
 * - 16 July 2008
 * - 16 July 2008


 * Previous report: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Apr_1
 * I've given them all warnings. This looks like sockpuppetry or people working for the same organization. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The spamming has continued by 220.227.179.4. --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * COIBot report on the way, I added it for now to XLinkBot. Block all spam accounts indef, please.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Ronz. I got distracted and didn't follow through last week. This domain is now blacklisted locally. -- A. B. (talk • contribs)
 * Not a problem. Thanks for the help and explanation! --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

eyeglasses spam
A bunch of eyeglasses-related pages were spammed by the same anonymous user with links to commercial web sites, sunglasses-direct.co.uk, tomfordsunglasses.com, and kingswalkcontactlenses.co.uk. The spam has been reverted, but at least one of them retained text indicating that it was a link to a relevant web site.

I didn't warn; I don't know what policy is on warning an anonymous user.


 * Domains spammed
 * www.sunglasses-direct.co.uk
 * www.tomfordsunglasses.com
 * www.kingswalkcontactlenses.co.uk
 * www.stephendonaldeyewear.co.uk
 * www.kingswalkcontactlenses.co.uk
 * www.stephendonaldeyewear.co.uk
 * www.stephendonaldeyewear.co.uk


 * Public registration data:
 * Stephen Donald Eyewear
 * 5 Kings Walk
 * Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG1 2AE
 * GB


 * Spam accounts:


 * Replacing other links with your own is particularly inappropriate, especially when the original links are to the official websites of the articles' subjects (Ray-Ban, Luxottica).
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Still another warning followed by a block.


 * Bad enough to block, bad enough to blacklist. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User:ModaRazzi and modarazzi.com
User is self-identified as the owner and operator of the website http://www.modarazzi.com. He has been notified and warned multiple times on his talk page regarding the spamming of fashion related pages with links to the website (see contributions here). Following my removal of multiple spam links, he contacted me on my talk page here with a personal attack and threats for removing the links. A brief exchange had the result that he intended to continue to re-add the links each time they were removed. The page has been linked to articles multiple times as noted here: WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/modarazzi.com. The links have been on the report on multiple dates (from user backlinks link):


 * 1) Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2008 Jun 26
 * 2) Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2008, Jun 28
 * 3) Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2008, Jul 2
 * 4) Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2008, Jul 3
 * 5) Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2008, Jul 5
 * 6) Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2008, Jul 8
 * 7) Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2008, Jul 9
 * 8) Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2008, Jul 10

This is the first time I've made a report to this board and hope I have done this right. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Link information follows:


 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers


 * MER-C 13:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I indefblocked the user and put his link on XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Fiorano Software
You'd think they would have gone away by now.


 * Previous incidents
 * Suspected sock puppets/Fioranoweb (2nd)
 * Suspected sock puppets/Fioranoweb (3rd)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Aug
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Jan 2
 * Administrators%27 noticeboard/Archive124


 * Spam pages


 * Spammers

MER-C 12:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.germany-christmas-market.org.uk

 * Spammers

MER-C 12:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Added link again after MER-C's warning Caomhin (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dandy's Topsoil http://spam.dandystopsoil.co.uk
http://spam.dandys.org http://spam.dandys-garden-forum.the-talk.net
 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers
 * Spammer replaced existing links.
 * Spammer replaced existing links.
 * Spammer replaced existing links.

MER-C 13:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel that I spammed anything...
When I added the link to a book on Amazon after saying that the book had a plot that involved the collapse of Cumbre Vieja. I linked to the book's site on Amazon as a reference - to cite the information I was providing. I think it is unfair to blacklist me, and thus to call into question my integrity as an editor on the wikipedia, and further to link to my page with this unfair claim, automated bot or not. Please in the future, write to me if you or your bot have a problem with one of my edits before placing me on a blacklist.

2007-12-29 20:34:04: User en:Saudade7 (talk - contribs) to en:Cumbre Vieja (diff). Links: www.amazon.com/Scimitar-SL-2-Robinson-Patrick/dp/0060086645.

Thank you.  S a u d a d e 7  11:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody has placed you on a blacklist if you are posting here. Amazon links are nixed by the bot because its a commercial book sales site.  Considering you nixed a couple of online stores on Taxidermy I would think that you could appreciate that.  I am sure you can find a book review or some other type of reference that you can use to discuss the book.  Montco (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Corporate vandalism
I'm persuaded that the New York Post and/or its parent company, the NewsCorp is using Wikipedia as an advertising venue.

For background on what appears to be a kind of corporate vandalism, please see:
 * Village pump (miscellaneous)

Thank you for your efforts in resolving this curious situation. --Tenmei (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.blackblot.com/

 * Links added


 * User account(s)

User has admitted on the discussion page of Blackblot that he / she is associated with Blackblot...com. He / she also created a Wikipedia article on Blackblot. So, he / she can't insert links to blackblot...com. This is a clear case of conflict of interst, and SPAMMING, guised under REFERENCES. What he / she is doing is self-promotion to sell more of Blackblot's PMTK templates (or whatever else he / she claims to be  selling on the discussion page of Blackblot by getting free advertising and free Internet traffic through Wikipedia. Also, the Blackblot article should be placed as an Article for Deletion (AFD), since there is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST / BUSINESS PROMOTION on that article Blackblotas well...

Some of the articles where I have deleted SPAM links to blackblot...com; which are cleverly disguised as REFERENCES, include articles on Marketing, Marketing communications, Marketing mix, Analyst relations, Competitive advantage, etc. Then someone pointed out that I should report Spinacia's SPAMMING of blackblot...com on this page, hence I am duly reporting this.

This user's contributions are clever; he creates new articles, or introduces a subheading called Alternative view of marketing, product marketing, marketing communications, or what have you, and then adds a SPAM link to his blackblot...com homepage as a reference. Some administrator should visit all the articles Spinacia made contributions to, and delete these SPAM references; since his / her SPAM references are affecting the neutrality of content for these articles.

Frequently, other users add content, and Spinacia goes and undoes those, to preserve his SPAM link. So, Spinacia should be warned, and probably banned from making edits to Wikipedia. Also, the article on his / her company / business called Blackblot should be blacklisted / deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.174.47 (talk • contribs) 21:53, July 12, 2008
 * Please note that user 69.109.174.47 has not contributed anything to Wikipedia and his sole purpose on Wikipedia is to have my content removed. Without going into lengthy debates about valid citations, sources and notability, I voluntarily removed ALL my content contributions and the accompanying citations.  I ask the reports made about me be removed as they are no longer relevant.Spinacia (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Additional Note: While from the outset I made full disclosure and was always transparent about my identity, user 69.109.174.47 never was and appeared on Wikipedia one day only to harass and modify my content. This user originally deleted entire submissions and then opted only to delete references.  So his motivation here is clear. He is most likely a commercial competitor and the admins had served his wishes, but ultimately it is the Wikipedia community that will be hurt because they will not be able to see the content.  This matter is over, but please be advised that my content is copyright and must be accompanied by sources so I will not allow it to be resubmitted.  Thanks.Spinacia (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed all the links as spam. All but one were added by Spinacia. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of nonsense to Bad Boys Blue page
There's an ongoing nuisance created by user Playahata69 now for the 4th time on Bad Boys Blue page. This clearly immature character inserts his personal opinion into the article and he is just looking for attention. The article already addresses elsewhere an inequality between the two current formations and there's no need to include some teenage fan's unsubstantiated opinion to accentuate his/her personal, which does not belong to wiki.

I would very much appreciate if appropriate action could be taken on this borderline vandal to prevent him/her from making disruptive edits to Bad Boys Blue. Lionscitygl (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really a spam issue I'm afraid. Editor assistance/Requests may be a more appropriate place for assistance.  Else if things get too out of hand there's Administrator intervention against vandalism Caomhin (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Already resolved, thanks. Lionscitygl (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Grahamwelch
I'm not at home at this Wikipedia project so I'm unfamiliar with the proceedings. Just want to notify you about User Grahamwelch who is doing link-spam not only here, but at other Wikipedias too (now blocked indef at German WP). -- CecilK (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Given .de blacklisting

Caomhin (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Spamming on Asuncion article
I have given 2 warnings to for spamming and they're continuing. The IP is used solely for spamming.

Michellecrisp (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Link info follows. MER-C 02:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.buscar.com.py

Adult Stars Magazine

 * Deleted article
 * Links added
 * Account
 * Account
 * Account

Kelly hi! 03:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just seen a link replaced by a new account with a single edit.
 * Caomhin (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Caomhin (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.ishmaeljones.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 12:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Leedryburgh
Please consider for blocking for repeated external link spamming of SIGTRAN, Signaling System 7 and IP Multimedia Subsystem articles. Thank You. Dgtsyb (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)



See templates above. Dgtsyb (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * User Dgtsyb keeps being a drain on Wikipedia resources and this is yet another drain. The user has made all kinds of claims, even down to my IP address not matching the country I live in (like he should know where I reside), and other personal claims which are unprofessional and untrue. We can't guess his motives but the main thing is to realise and get a picture of his ongoing behaviour. The last false accusation was of sock puppetry here Suspected_sock_puppets/Leedryburgh. He also has engaged in vandalising my talk page again after being advised not to by an admin User_talk:Leedryburgh. For a full discussion of the issue please see Talk:Signaling_System_7 . Thanks. Leedryburgh (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Leedryburgh, please take a look at our Conflict of Interest Guideline. You are not to add links to your own site. If someone else adds them and they meet our other guidelines, that's OK. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The link in question is of relevance to the pages in question and Leedryburgh has gone some way to address concerns by removign advertising from the book pages. The question is now simply whether the links belong on the External Links sections of the pages - if its just a question of who adds them, for heavens sake, I'll add them, if there is some other reason why they shouldnt be here it would help if the reasons were explained to Leedryburgh in full, (I for one dont understand why they keep being removed without discussion). The edit war between these two users is becoming a distraction to those of us who monitor the pages. Beardybloke (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:Signaling System 7 for an opinion on the suitability of the links in any section. Dgtsyb (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Leedryburgh and Dgtsyb should just disengage from this and I've left them both talk page messages to this effect. Leedryburgh should not add any of his links (per WP:COI) and Dgtsyb should not remove them again (per WP:EDITWAR). There are other editors familiar with SS7 that should be able to handle the link question just fine. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make the point that AFTER making a the clearly false spam claim (Dgtsyb wanted it moved in terms of section not removed), someone is placing my links back in under a strange IP and using my text. If this is to support a false claim, this is not good work. Thanks. Leedryburgh (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is ongoing, and I have therefor added the link to XLinkBot. Leedryburgh, involved IPs, please DISCUSS insertion of the link and achieve CONSENSUS on the talkpage.  I suggest that the next failure to do so will result in blacklisting of the link, and blocking of the account using the link.  Hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont think its helpful to talk of blacklisting at this point. If ever there was a green light for someone who overtly wants the link excluded to start IP editting to force its complete removal by an admin then that was it. Its really not helpful. Lee is understandably agitated about the whole thing as he presumably feels a sense of ownership and pride in his own work which is a hefty tome on the subject matter. I'd suggest he takes a few more breaths before further input to the topic. Its obvious he and Dgtsyb rub each other up the wrong way and we seem to be talking about it now in the Talk page for SS7. Beardybloke (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a number of tools we could use if this continues:
 * Check-user followed by a long or even indefinite block for whichever party is using those IPs
 * Article semi-protection
 * Blocks of edit-warring parties
 * Domain blacklisting
 * We'll just have to see what happens next. Hopefully both parties have gotten the message by now. If not, we'll have to think up a Plan B depending on what happens next. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On Signaling System 7 the link is in the references section, and there is no need for a second copy of that. The link is on XLinkBot, and will be reverted if an IP adds it again (or we will be alerted it happens).  Lee, I think that document makes a perfect reference, and I believe it should be used as such.  I hope this resolves this part of the story, if the IPs insist the other way will be to semiprotect the document, and I hope that involved parties understand that the page is now being watched by some admins, and that further warring without proper discussion on the talkpage (where parties have agreed mutually to a certain point) may result in blocks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is fine. I now give up. I'll go away and take a deep breath - but the whole episode is indicative of one of the reasons I initially held off creating a wikipedia account. Its a bit like herding cats and life is too short. Beardybloke (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Guidence with Chaos theory
The Chaos theory in the media section of the chaos theory page has been the subject of an ongoing edit war over whether or not the inclusion of certain films, esp. Dasavatharam should be listed. It has been removed as linkspam, constantly re-added, the page has been protected and discussion regarding the provision of reliable sources has taken place. I have suggested that only documentaries by listed or that a Cultural References section be created, and along with others, requested that reliable sources by given to back up the claim that the film is significant to chaos theory. I have also suggested a template for chaos theory be created that lists related films, books, etc. and that just because a film is about something it doesn't mean it should listed on a relevant article. Can ayone confirm that the link and others are inappopriate spam or encyclopedic enough to merit a listing? - Shiftchange (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.fibre2fashion.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 10:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Telegraph Media Group Limited
Single purpose editor (operating from an account registered to Telegraph Media Group Limited) linking telegraph.co.uk in virtually every article. Discount travel offers (diff); opinion pieces (diff); linking clumsily to  Telegraph front page when a direct link is required (diff). — eon, 20:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)