Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Mar 2.5

rsslivetv.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Adsense related pub-8216729736081323

Continued spamming; --Hu12 (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * More spamming (redirect site)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.cornwallinfocus.co.uk

 * Sites spammed


 * Images uploaded


 * Spammers

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

Adsense pub-3813850681263820
http://spam.bd-r.es http://spam.bd-re.es http://spam.bd-rom.es http://spam.bludisk.es http://spam.bd-live.es http://spam.calcutta.org http://spam.guiacoruña.es http://spam.xn--guiacorua-s6a.es http://spam.a-coruña.com.es http://spam.la-coruña.com.es http://spam.xn--a-corua-9za.com.es http://spam.xn--la-corua-j3a.com.es http://spam.rickenbacker.es http://spam.xn--acstica-71a.net http://spam.olimpiadas.net http://spam.clavijero.es http://spam.calcutta.es http://spam.xn--latn-xpa.net http://spam.latín.net http://spam.de-españa.net http://spam.xn--de-espaa-j3a.net http://spam.gretsch.es http://spam.audiotherapy.es
 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

What's with the "--" and non-latin characters in the URL? Does it have anything to do with bug 13207? I also note with concern that some of the domains are parked using sedo.com (dummy link) -. MER-C 11:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Corkscrew External links
The Corkscrew article has been recently attacked by spam ELs by


 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Accounts

putting in an ad link to a single Corsckrew manufacturer. The 87.65.151.180 IP has been repeatedly warned and most likely these are the same user who is insisting on seaming the article with this link. Thanks for your time. AgneCheese/Wine 17:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The site also appears to be listed on user account by a SPA, and on the french wiki. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * More,
 * Cross wiki acounts
 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Frnks
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Frnks
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Frnks
 * I've tagged the accounts, blocked the socks.--Hu12 (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the accounts, blocked the socks.--Hu12 (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the accounts, blocked the socks.--Hu12 (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of web hosting services
As if Web hosting service wasn't spammed enough, Now there's ....


 * Comparison of web hosting services

Bookmark this article, its likely to become a major link farm. --Hu12 (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

http://sss.ChocolateTreasureChest.com
Editor started by promoting their own link and after being warned on that promoted a Google search results page on which their link was the first result. (see this particularly obnoxious addition )

Editor:

-- SiobhanHansa 00:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (Note: At the moment the linksearch shows hundreds of hits for the url because the editor added it to templates. Those edits have been reverted but linksearch (presumably working off a slightly out of synch server) is still picking them up for the moment. -- SiobhanHansa 00:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.chickipedia.com
Reported by Nesodak (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Spammer
 * Spammer

--Hu12 (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.zewert.com

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Majorbrainy. MER-C 05:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.dvdholocaust.com

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 11:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Continued
 * --Hu12 (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.cruiserlog.com
Adsense pub-0282016660355590
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Related
 * http://spam.cruiser.co.za
 * http://spam.cruisingconnections.co.za

--Hu12 (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.cruisingresources.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

cruisingresources.com/crs_about owner of site --Hu12 (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.ebooks-library.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

All the same site
Adsense pub-3988999451570664
 * http://spam.cngprices.com
 * http://spam.altfuelprices.com
 * http://spam.cngchat.com
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Adsense pub-5089055693965048

 * See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Dec_1
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Continued spamming;
 * Bl'd--Hu12 (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Cross Wiki --Hu12 (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/85.181.59.187
 * http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/85.181.59.187

http://spam.gsmking.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Continued
 * --Hu12 (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

howtopedia.org

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Continued spamming

Possibly related
 * http://spam.microgeneration.com
 * http://spam.practicalaction.org
 * http://spam.goodideacreative.com

--Hu12 (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

SHS International Ltd spam

 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Continued spamming adding additional sites

--Hu12 (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Publisher - Harriman House
100% spam. Frustrated that none of the other article editors have dealt with this over the past year - it doesn't get more blatant than this. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 12:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's blatant but fairly low volume compared to some. At least from this account.  Given the flashing red light of a name it seems unlikely the author knew they were violating our policies.    I've added a warning message to the editor's talk page that includes the URLs so we can connect any sock or meat puppets that also get warned.
 * Two links involved on this account. Both of them owned by Harriman House:
 * Book additions are much harder to spot sadly. I've seen other publishers do the same and can think of no way of tracking across accounts in any sort of systematic way.
 * Book additions are much harder to spot sadly. I've seen other publishers do the same and can think of no way of tracking across accounts in any sort of systematic way.
 * Book additions are much harder to spot sadly. I've seen other publishers do the same and can think of no way of tracking across accounts in any sort of systematic way.


 * Well spotted. -- SiobhanHansa 13:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note also who started the Harriman House article (with remarkably unpromotional copy for an apparently COI edit).  Other additions of the link that currently exist on WP appear to have been made in good faith by established editors (which doesn't mean they shouldn't be replaced with ISBN numbers but I haven't looked at that).  -- SiobhanHansa 14:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Siobhan. Funnily enough I live nearby, but was unaware of them, however I was aware of Global Investor and it appears that they are all part of the same network -


 * and from there (see first contribs) -
 * and from there (see first contribs) -
 * and from there (see first contribs) -
 * and from there (see first contribs) -
 * and from there (see first contribs) -


 * to tired to look any further, cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 23:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.ricsbooks.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 10:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

inthenewspapers.net
Reported to WP:AN (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=199061489#Possible_COI_Spamming permanent link] by User:Risker:



accounts:



Link may be useful, but this account is cleary spamming. I am not behind a secure computer, can someone have a look at it? --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 11:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Another --Hu12 (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Its an adsense ( pub-7994823585731584 ) aggregated scraper site. #10 on WP:LINKSTOAVOID --Hu12 (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

spam.eclipse-china.com

 * Previous incidents
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Oct_2
 * m:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/10


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

Global blacklisting requested. MER-C 11:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

multi-monitors.com / investmental.com

 * Spam pages
 * multi-monitor


 * Sites spammed


 * Account


 * Previous instances

As no blocks have yet been performed regarding the spamming, a block is probably the best course for now, if only to establish precedent for future action. Dancter (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems this has been persistantly going on since June 2007, perhaps longer. I've blacklisted those url's. --Hu12 (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

User:HeyChicken
New account; entire edit history is linkspam. Durova Charge! 22:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Links


 * Account

Cosmetic surgery and related

 * http://spam.accs.org.au
 * http://spam.cosmeticsurgery.org
 * http://spam.americanboardcosmeticsurgery.org
 * http://spam.canadianacademy.org
 * http://spam.eacs-international.com
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

http://.infobdsm.pornwebring.net

 * http://spam.sadoteca.com
 * http://spam.spankingflash.com.ar
 * http://spam.spankmovies.liveadulthost.com
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

ScoreLogix LLC Spamming

 * http://spam.jobsecurityscore.com
 * http://spam.scorelogix.com
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam link reports
The spam links reports WikiProject Spam/LinkReports by site are frequently problematic for people writing in to otrs. I'm not sure what function they serve, and am not saying it's not worth it, but that bot log very frequently is beating out people's actual websites in google rank, and it's got "spam" all over it. It seems from my perspective that a lot of well-intentioned people create usernames similar to their company, then edit and get a log, but then are punished forever by having their site linked with spam. I'm not that into anti-spam activities on wiki, but just letting you all know, maybe the benefits outweigh the negatives. :) - cohesion 22:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The logs are very useful to us, but I don't think there's any good reason to have them on Google. Is there a way to stop them being indexed?  -- SiobhanHansa 22:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Having them indexed by Google is a good thing. If someone searches for the domain it will show that that domain is on Wikipedia Spam list. It is on the list because someone Spammed Wikipedia with the domain. So, maybe it will serve as a deterent from Spamming Wikipedia. No real company wants to be on a Spam list. Igor Berger (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that you can get in those reports for other reasons, such as simply adding in a domain who IP matches yours, even if the link was perfectly legitimate. I don't want to see anything happen that encourages spamming, but I think perhaps a soft-touch would be helpful here. Shell babelfish 01:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's good for nobody, and certainly not the encyclopedia. We have enough of a spam problem without the extra grief of people now spamming their competitors websites in an obtuse way so they get caught here and thus also by Google.  If we knew for 100% certain who an actual spammer was, fine, but we have no idea, and now the problem becomes dangerous since no one here wants to hurt some innocent company that some scumbags have targeted. 2005 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should start a RfC and see if you can get consensus not to have the Spam list logs indexed by search engines. You just need to add a noindex meta tag to the page. Igor Berger (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we continue to discuss it here? An RfC at this point is a bit premature. -- Versa  geek  00:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, I don't feel super strongly about it, just letting people know some of the ramifications. I think probably a lot of people just don't realize what they are doing when they make an edit, sure many are spammers, but lots aren't. We should assume good faith. I don't think we can actually include noindex on pages technically though right, or have I missed something? - cohesion 00:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like bug 9415 and another... There is some concern about misuse, probably realistically. :) - cohesion 00:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not come across instances of Joe Jobs, which 2005 implies. I'm sure there probably has been attempts at some point and time, however those offenders are easily identified and ferreted out with any victim(s) exonerated immediatly! These link reports are extremely useful to the project. Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, it is that very openness that sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit this site (look at this page). The abuse of Wikipedia as a promotional tool, or the exploitation of Wikipedia in SEO stratigies to increase page rankings, is not our concern. We're here to build a better encyclopedia and the search engine results of companies outside wikipedia are, again, not our concern. These link reports are key in order to prevent repeated exploitation as illustrated on this page. Wikipedia is a public place 9th ranked site in the world. Take responsibility for your actions here, and you are less likely to be surprised by undesirable consequences of what you say and do. --Hu12 (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How about the rule "The IP related to the link is added by someone with an IP close to the IP of the link."? This bot can flag for 1 instance and has no way of telling if the link was appropriate or perhaps someone was updating an old link, and for that, we toss a domain on what looks like spam list.  Is it possible that cases like that might cause an external site concern? Shell babelfish 01:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "The abuse of Wikipedia as a promotional tool, or the exploitation of Wikipedia in SEO stratigies to increase page rankings, is not our concern." Well it obviously is otherwise or we wouldn't have nofollow on links.  That issue is already settled.  We have already accepted this as a concern of ours (even if plenty of people opposed the nofollow idea).  The problem of spamming other people's websites has been small enough, but should be even greater given the reason behind the inital post above, and this eye-opening discussion itself, and the higher profile of the fact that Google does use the list.  We aren't here to help people using us for vandal purposes.  We DO care that people use Wikipedia as a promtional tool, both in a way to promote themselves and to hurt others.  Our external links and COI guidelines, plus nofollow already reflect that.  So let's not pretend otherwise, especially when one solution is apparently so easy, just robots.txt denying that page.  The Spam Project is here to keep spam out of the encyclopedia, not to encourage it, and not to deliberately cause a ripple effect of attack websites that never spammed. If our concern is only the encyclopedia, then obviously there is no downside to robots.txt denying those pages. 2005 (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 *  higher profile of the fact that Google does use the list I don't think there's anything in the initial post to indicate that Google uses our local blacklist - just that it indexes the report pages higher than many other people's websites. -- SiobhanHansa 02:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I assumed the fact the known fact that Google uses the blacklist was part of the reason for the inital post being made. Google uses the blacklist and apparently there has been some posts on websmaster forums the past couple days. 2005 (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that's referring to the mediawiki spamblacklist, which is different than these reports. Shell babelfish 03:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds of wikipedia "local" blacklists. The Global Spam_blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Its only speculation that google might use the "Global blacklist' and even less likely they are using en.wikipedia.org's tiny local blacklist. --Hu12 (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, you explained that quite a bit better :) Shell babelfish 03:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Wikipedia does not have any arrangements with any of the search engine companies; if they're using our "global blacklist" it's purely on their own initiative. --Hu12 (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue here isn't the blacklist, its the bot-generated spam reports. Mr.  Z- man  04:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's all irrelevant to the issues here. Let's stay focused. What we do has consequences for us and others.  When we can minimize the consequences for us and others and there is zero downside for us, its a no brainer to do it. 2005 (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hu12 - Joe Jobs would be nasty if they happened but they aren't necessary to make us think we should hide the pages. A huge number of those reports aren't of spam. You could get on that list if your url was GFDLBooks.org and you were added to Wikipedia by User:ILoveBooks - the pages were never supposed to indicate any kind of guilt, they're just a reporting tool to help with research.  Even if the only benefit to Wikipedia is that OTRS gets less emails - that's a positive result.-- SiobhanHansa 02:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support adding the report pages to the robots.txt file. I've deleted at least one of these pages after a complaint to OTRS: the report was months old, the accounts/IPs were never blocked and the report was only linked to from an old talk archive (The person complaining was also very apologetic). Mr.  Z- man  01:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If we can't include noindex as Cohesion mentions, above maybe we could move the pages to a namespace that isn't indexed? -- SiobhanHansa 02:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't include noindex on pages ourselves, but I think the developers can edit the robots.txt file. I think this seems like the best solution, as the pages clearly are useful internally, but not externally. Anyone think excluding the pages via robots.txt is a bad idea? - cohesion 17:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

First, those reports are not supposed to be punitative, they are supposed to be preventive. Now, if people do some research before they decide that their company rankings need a boost, they will realise that other websites already have that page, and that these can be found on google, then they will (hopefully) not do that. There is a thin line there between preventative and punitative, I confess.

When a company user makes a page for his own company, he gets a warning around his edit box, try creating a page and read "Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article, or search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title. To experiment, please use the sandbox. As you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. Without references, the article may be deleted." .. the page after "before creating an article, please read the Your first article gets ignored in many cases! That document actually reads "Please don't create pages about yourself or your friends, pages that advertise, or personal essays." (that could be expanded with 'company, ...').  As an IP you can apparently not create a page (I just found out ... did not know that).  When editing as an IP, you get above the edit box: "Editing this way will cause your IP address to be recorded publicly in this page's edit history".  When creating an account you get the same warning "Before choosing a username please understand that all contributions are permanently recorded, searchable by username (see Help:User contributions), and publicly visible in the history of any page you edit. Also see the notes below." In other words, people should know that their actions are logged, publicly.

When you add, as an IP at least, your first link to that page, you get another warning (with captcha), "Your edit includes new external links. These may be much welcomed links to references. Please note that the nofollow HTML attribute is applied to external links in Wikipedia, instructing search engines to ignore these links when computing page ranks. For information on our standards for adding links, please see our External links Guideline." When they proceed, they apparently did not take time to fully read External links (quoting "Due to the rising prominence of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked."

All in all, I believe there are several warnings where people could at least start thinking that they have to be careful with their edits, though maybe it should be even stronger, linking to WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Their edits are logged publicly, and they are available to the public. But I do realise that these get ignored often.

Now not for the older pages, the newer pages from the bot have a big templated explanation on top. That does say that when that report exists, that that does not mean it is spam, that accounts have a coi, etc. etc. Feel free to make that notion stronger if necessery. If there is consensus for a noindex tag, that can be included in the template (I hope that works, I guess so), but I do think that people when adding their own links they got warned enough so that they should know they get publicly logged, and that they license their contributions under the GDFL (I, as an admin, still have the latter warning under my edit box).

I have in the past had some discussions about deletion (and some reports have been on MfD). When there is mistaken overlap (and there is no proof of other spamming in the reports), then I don't have a problem with deleting the records (and I do when pointed to that, and I then also whitelist the users). When the request is done by someone involved, or an unestablished editor who may or may not be involved, then I tend to say no, and I won't delete. (Bad faith warning:) Chances are quite probable that you were creating your page here to improve your rankings on the web (see WP:SPAM; wikipedia has a high ranking on google, so having your page here does result in good advertising), and now that you see that it backfires (after all the warnings above) you want your track-record cleared because wikipedia, in stead of good advertisement, results in bad advertisement of your site?

I hope this gives my point of view, but I'd like to hear more about this. I would like to add, when people see clear mistakes by the bot, then please give me whitelist requests, and when domains get caught which should not get caught, then also warn me (also for technical reasons, if it accidental picks up google.com, the machine the bot runs on would have a very difficult time when it has to generate a report). The bot has quite some types of whitelisting possible (and if more is needed, I can do that as well). Links that generate reports should also be removed from the monitorlist; without that the bot would regenerate reports again after deletion of the report, so that is needed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I should add, I have not come accross Joe Jobs (the bot has been used to actually catch the socks used for a Joe Job performed by User:JB196 at a certain moment). If that happens, then indeed, that report should be removed without further questions, and I or someone else who has access to the command line of the bot (there are quite some in our spam channel; you can use the java freenode client) should be notified to add the links appropriately to whitelists. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

&larr;Mr. Z-man added a request in bugzilla, do we have consensus to just add these to robots txt so that google etc doesn't index them? Then they can stay like they are but it won't matter? :) bug 13398 - cohesion 00:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't interperate the above as consensus, but perhaps others do? Nor do I believe the bug 13398 is reported accurately. Has any one discussed modifying the bot code, before attempting to remove the legitimate reports?--Hu12 (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I only mean remove them from google search results, not from Wikipedia. This seems like an easier solution than modifying the bot code, presumably the reports are useful how they are, I don't see any reason to change them. (?) - cohesion 12:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For some of the reports these are preventive, when the really hardcore spammers realise the negative impact of those reports (especially when more of their domains are listed on google in these reports) they may stop. I am therefore not completely in favour of removing all the reports from google using a tag or robots.txt.  I could comply with deletion of the reports, if the involved accounts have stopped promptly after warnings, or have stopped and promise not to do it again (note: for the administrators here the reports are still visible, via the deleted revisions).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with that Dirk. I am not in favor of removing all the reports from google using a tag or robots.txt. Deletion of reports (through discussion) on a cases by case basis, is the correct way to handle this.--Hu12 (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well now that you have completely contradicted yourself within a few inches in this section, please explain why we should be in the business of impacting the SEO strategies of websites? The above attitude is precisely why these reports should either be robots.txt or removed entirely.  The Wikipedia should not be used as a tool to attempt to hurt or influence the rest of the Internet. Two editors have just said they want to do that.  It can only get worse in the future with COI editors attempting to be dicks with the aim to hurt competitors.  There is no downside to robots.txt'ing these pages, and plenty of reasons in a BLP vein why they should be. 2005 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Contradicted What? Are you sure you've read my above post correctly..? (perhaps I wasn't clear). Who's Hurting competitors? Cleary you have two of the most active users spam fighting, telling you there are not Joe Jobs occuring on Wikipedia. That contentious fact does not become truth by virtue of repetition. its just not a valid argument.  Wikipedia may be in the real world and does have real world consequences if abused, wether it be "link" reports, harassment of others, RFC's, legal threats or trolling. These things go on record. I'm sure the majority of complaints that come in at OTRS are bogus lies, deceptive, false, misleading and promotionaly motivated. In cases of egregious spamming, why whould we care if a link report shows up on google. Spamming forgo's advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests. If "they" took responsibility for their actions here, they would be less likely to be surprised by the undesirable consequences of what they did. Wikipedia is the 9th largest site on the planet, we are getting our ass kicked by spam. --Hu12 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you persisting with these strawmen arguments? Let's stay focused, please.  No one argued the reports have been abused, so please spare us the "telling" nonsense and false assertions.  The point again is they could be in the future, and there is no reason to allow and encourage that when there is a simple solution.  Now please don't go back to making up strawman.  "why whould we care if a link report shows up on google"  Then, stop posting on the issue!  LOL.  If you don't care, then don't care.  Instead you contradict yourself and then recontradict yourself.  We should care about this because it very likely will encourage more spam, and is prone to abuse, and there is no reason at all for us to want them to be there.  If you don't care, please don't be an obstructionist on something that should be a total no brainer.  2005 (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The logical fallacy being perpetuated is that these reports will encourage more spam and are prone to abuse on the assumption of future Joe Jobs. As others have stated, I would like to hear more about the complaints that come into OTRS. I have never seen any one post one of these complaints, or inquire from anyone here for more information on a issue. --Hu12 (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "The Wikipedia should not be used as a tool to attempt to hurt or influence the rest of the Internet.". There is a thin line here: there are companies/individuals who do use the wikipedia to influence the rest of the internet by weaving their pages and links into wikipedia pages.  As I already said earlier, and I know that that assumes bad faith for all such editors, if that was their intention, then indeed, I don't see why we should then now assist in their records being polished.  If it is a one-time edit, then indeed, I concur with deletion, but if there is any form of persistence in which they have ignored the warnings that the mediawiki software is providing, then I don't see why these reports should not be visible.
 * I do slowly get another question, why has mediawiki decided that this namespace is indexed on google? Are there records about that?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam link records - arbitrary break - request for OTRS examples
I would like to hear more about both the complaints that come into OTRS and the idea that we should want these found by Google as a preventative device in order to better consider the perceived downside in relation to the perceived benefits.

What sort of quantity of OTRS emails are received and how many are actually from owners of links that haven't been spammed? And how frequently and highly do these pages actually rank on google? I searched for 12 sites listed on the link reports page and didn't find the site's Wikipedia link report listed on the first two pages of Google results for any of them.

Is there any evidence that the pages actually are preventative? I'm a little troubled by the idea that people should have to be proactive to deal with the side effects of a bot. Especially since some of the pages it links to are not spam. Even a website that puts their link on once or twice - gets warned and stops shouldn't be forever branded by the strength of our website in Google's search results unless they know how to complain. That seems totally out of proportion to our site's general response to occasional actions that break our policies. If we don't know that these pages being ranked on Google prevent spam here I find the argument less compelling. -- SiobhanHansa 13:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Seen there are complaints on OTRS does show that people are checking their google ranking and that they end up quite high. To me, it also shows to a certain extend the effect of the reports.  They intentionally/unintentionally spam wikipedia (some of the complaints must be after they have created there own page with the thought "Hey, Wikipedia has a high google ranking, my company needs a page there, that is good for me", the sort of action that is discouraged in WP:SPAM and WP:BFAQ) and now say they will never do it again and/or want to go through the proper channels.  That is why I again say, let them be indexed by google, reports can be deleted if they promise not to do it again (that includes paying an 'uninvolved' party to spam for them, they know then also that that may again result in regeneration of the reports).
 * In a way, seen the number of redlinked COIBot links here on this page shows that warning and reporting here is also preventive, the spamming often stops immediately (proven from the fact that COIBot does not pick up the links).
 * Leaves one question unanswered. Should we be more pro-active in removing rules from the bot and deleting reports when a situation is resolved (that is, no persistent spamming from an account, report is old, and the link has not ended up on a blacklist or revertlist or the links have been heavily discussed on this or a similar forum)?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The emails I have seen are usually small sites I have never heard of that go in to correct something etc, create a username like the site, and then get a report. They are usually single purpose accounts by people who seem to be new users. I'm assuming good faith, and the sites I have seen do in fact rank about as high as a search for the url itself. I'm rather alarmed that people want these logs to be punitive, I didn't realize we were punishing people here. - cohesion 00:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as the OTRS requests, I've seen 4 emails in the past week myself and know at least one more came in today. I researched the first four and in each case the sites were small to incredibly small and all were non-commercial.  In one case the owner had added a link to their site on an article where they thought it fit anonymously; he was warned and never replaced the link.  In the other cases, someone affiliated with the site had created an account named after the site and added a link; I don't remember the exact counts for each one, but each had no more than 3 total insertions and none were repeated after removal/warning.  All of these people were brand-new editors and didn't appear to be attempting to promote their site.


 * It makes a lot of sense that these reports would be a deterrent for actual spammers. Maybe some kind of a threshold would help sort out the accidental mistakes by new editors vs people trying to promote their site? Shell babelfish 02:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate everyone's efforts to sate my curiosity! I certainly find the responses helpful. A threshold sounds like it might be a good way to go.  Could we perhaps have a bot archive reports that haven't been added to after, say, a month to a non-indexed namespace? Or start the reports in a non-indexed space and then promote them to the WikiProject sub-pages if they receive more than a particular number of additions (the latter might be even more useful - a good prod for us on this project to be more proactive about a particular link)? -- SiobhanHansa 13:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would add I don't interpret the large number of redlinks to COIBot reports as a sign that reporting on this page is particularly preventative. I've been keeping my own reports for a while (see User:SiobhanHansa/Checks) and the vast majority of editors seem to give up after their initial attempts are unsuccessful, regardless of whether they've been reported here or not.  I think reverting and warning is our most effective method of preventing further spamming of a site. -- SiobhanHansa 13:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Threshold for starting to report should be possible. That is an actual count of records in COIBot's database, I can have a look at that later, I guess you guys have a better feel for this, shall I start with reporting when there are more than 5 reports in COIBot's database (which may be of 5 different people!)?
 * Re Cohesion, no, preventive, not punative. If the reports are there, they know they are being watched, and may stop.  As I said, if the users promise to stop, and actually haven't pushed their links too much, then just delete the reports, that is enough discussion, and we don't need them at that point anymore (if I encounter bad records I also delete them without discussion and 'block' reporting by the bot accordingly).  But I see that there is a thin line between punative and preventive here.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5 sounds like a reasonable starting place to me. If COIBot is keeping all this in a database anyway we can presumably always change the threshold if it seems like it's too high or low.  -- SiobhanHansa 14:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have just programmed it to "more than 5". It will still report widely used links after it caught one user having an (apparent) conflict of interest.  The problem here is, that when a user makes coi edit, COIBot picks up the link.  When that editor does not edit again, but the link gets used by others, it still results in a report after some time.  But it does cut quite some reports out.  The bot is still adding a line to WikiProject Spam/LinkReports to notify that a link has been added (but that page does not get indexed in a way that it gets found in Google searches).
 * When I have time I will try and put some of the settings on a wikipage which gets read by COIBot. Hope this helps this far.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.shreekhetra.com http://spam.visitindiaheritage.com

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


 * Adsense IDs
 * pub-6924496831017090
 * pub-2009759205454141


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

The above IP found it necessary to remove two spam tracking posts and associated discussion (this is why this report is listed under two domains even though only one was spammed). MER-C 11:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Added the registered spam-only account for one of the domains above (shreekhetra.com). The IP began spamming back the same links just after User:Bdmishrawiki's were removed and he was given a final warning. (note that Bdmishrawiki was adding as many as 8 of his links to each article!). ~ priyanath talk 16:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

commonpurpose.org commonpurpose.org.uk

 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts


 * Cross wiki Spam

--Hu12 (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/88.106.207.152
 * http://bg.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
 * http://bs.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
 * http://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
 * http://cs.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
 * http://da.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
 * http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
 * http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
 * http://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
 * http://id.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
 * http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
 * http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
 * http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
 * http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
 * http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
 * http://sl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250
 * http://uk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.150.113.250

Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC. Spam abuse

 * Articles

Euromoney Institutional Investor Petroleum Economist Euromoney Engel Publishing Partners Compliance Reporter Metal Bulletin PLC


 * http://spam.euromoneyplc.com
 * http://spam.metalbulletinstore.com (redirect site euromoneyplc.com)


 * http://spam.airfinancejournal.com
 * http://spam.iflr.com
 * http://spam.iimagazine.com
 * http://spam.iinews.com
 * http://spam.euroweek.com
 * http://spam.iijournals.com
 * http://spam.institutionalinvestor.com
 * http://spam.gulfpub.com
 * http://spam.euromoneyyearbooks.com
 * http://spam.euromoney.com
 * http://spam.pharmalive.com
 * http://spam.emergingmarkets.org
 * http://spam..fundaction.com
 * http://spam.definedsavingsalert.com
 * http://spam.dailyii.com
 * http://spam.compliancereporter.com
 * http://spam.asiamoney.com
 * http://spam.asialawandpractice.com
 * http://spam.alphamagazine.com
 * http://spam.airtrafficmanagement.net
 * http://spam.petroleum-economist.com
 * http://spam.reactionsnet.com
 * http://spam.tradefinancemagazine.com
 * http://spam.projectfinancemagazine.com
 * http://spam.iiwealthmanagement.com
 * http://spam.operationsmanagement.com
 * http://spam.latinfinance.com
 * http://spam.misti.com
 * http://spam.euromoneytraining.com
 * http://spam.dcgtraining.com
 * http://spam.securities.com
 * http://spam.latinfinance.com
 * http://spam.euromoneyseminars.com
 * http://spam.euromoneyenergy.com
 * http://spam.euromoneyconferences.com
 * http://spam.coaltrans.com




 * Accounts

Euromoney Institutional Investor, PLC --Hu12 (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Adsense pub-4184953184656274

 * http://spam.reversemortgagedaily.com
 * http://spam.lenderleadsolutions.com
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

trainingwithinindustry.net 2

 * See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Feb_1

Adsense pub-6653199402139571
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Curcumventing BL,
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Adsense pub-2142837413930969

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

--Hu12 (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.Alternatefuels.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Adsense pub-8118598459041388
Adsense pub-8118598459041388
 * http://spam.cavediving.de
 * http://spam.guitar-tutorial.net
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 05:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cross Wiki Spam


 * http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/TechDiver

OsFinancials

 * http://spam.osfinancials.org
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Marval comic link addition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/204.153.84.10 - not sure about this one, but adding lots of links. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 18:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverted them, WP:NOT..strange none the less..--Hu12 (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI: He added more and reverted several of the reverts of his prior edits. --71.227.150.109 (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

pastemagazine.com
Another one I think is somewhat interesting, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.16.116.2. Seems to only add that link. Does not seem to be in major use either, per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.pastemagazine.com. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 20:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Feb_1
 * Articles
 * Articles

Paste Magazine Paste (magazine)
 * http://spam.pastemagazine.com
 * http://spam.pastestore.com
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

→Paste Media Group       --Hu12 (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

affiliate spam fxcast.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cross wiki spamming

http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/196.217.199.176 --Hu12 (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forex&diff=23662196&oldid=23596260&rcid=23642170
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forex&diff=23552339&oldid=23363869&rcid=23529874
 * http://ar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/196.217.192.54
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forex&diff=prev&oldid=23662196
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forex&diff=prev&oldid=23596188

Ashleydupre.net
Multiple IPs keep adding this site (which seems to be a pure copyvio mashup with ads) to the Ashley Alexandra Dupré article. I'd rather not semi-protect the article because we get some useful anon edits there. Is there any way the link can be blacklisted? Nesodak (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Bots/Requests for approval/SpamReportBot
It is a request for bot approval that may be interesting to the members of this WikiProject. Your comments are welcome on that page. Max S em(Han shot first!) 15:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Earth 2 (TV series)
The same user keeps adding in a link to an Earth 2 role playing game. If WWeasel is the same as 12.10.115.129 then this user has already violated the three revert rule, and I'm up against it so I can't revert his latest link-spam. Would someone else look into this to see if this link is appropriate. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * links
 * http://spam.screamingwench.com


 * account


 * The link is to a forum for a game about the TV series and he WWeasel account appears to be a WP:SPA. I've removed the link from the article per WP:EL and WP:NOT. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also added a warning to both the user account and the IP. The IP was previously warned about adding links to other forums on the same site in September of 2007. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Msc. Additions

 * http://spam.improving-nao.blogspot.com
 * http://spam.acord.org
 * http://spam.navanet.org
 * http://spam.global360.com
 * http://spam.bankwatch.wordpress.com
 * http://spam.edmblog.fairisaac.com
 * http://spam.charliekroll.blogspot.com
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

shareentertainment.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.greatpointenergy.com

 * http://spam.fyretv.com
 * Articles
 * Articles
 * Articles

GreatPoint Energy FyreTV Fyretv Great Point Energy
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

groups.yahoo.com/group/ffsinsights/

 * User
 * User
 * User

Anon user edit-warring to include link to a Yahoo support group on this article. Nesodak (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.spacerockheaters.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 12:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Another spammer. MER-C 08:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Institute of Economic Affairs http://spam.iea.org.uk

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * bad as the spam here is, i don't think we really should blacklist the institute, as there is also responsible use of citations to its works. DGG (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. --Hu12 (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

List of screenwriting software
Just came across this list, which is composed mostly of external links. I checked through the policies, but I couldn't find any word on whether external link lists like this are allowed (though WP:NOT weakly implies they aren't). I really think we shouldn't allow this; the history of the article shows that it seems to be a spam magnet, essentially. What's the opinion on this sort of article? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Governwhore.com

 * User
 * User

Reported by Nesodak (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)



Added another single-purpose account to this report. Please consider local blacklist. Nesodak (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Help needed
Dear all. Eagle 101 and I have been working on bots in the spam IRC channels (see #wikipedia-spam-t for talking, people there will be able to steer you to the other channels; #wikipedia-en-spam and #cvn-sw-spam). The bots are now capable of real-time cross wiki spam detection (and soon that will also be reported). It would be nice if some of you would join us there, and help us cleaning etc. as this appears to go faster than we at first expect (and I do get the feeling the en wiki is not a good starting point for finding them! --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have build the new functionality into the coibot reports. The lower list, which shows the usage of the link under report, now has for every link a 3-number statistics:

Example:


 * 1) 2008-03-22 19:19:20: User Beetstra (talk - contribs; 1000) to Example (diff) - Link: www.example.org. * Other links added in this diff: www.example.org (3, 2, 1)

After 'contribs':


 * 1) the number 1000: how many external links did this user add to the 722 wikipedia that we watch (note: a user on this wikipedia may be another user on another wikipedia!)

'Other links added in this diff', after every link:


 * 1) first number (1000): how many links did this user add (same as after the 'contribs')
 * 2) second number (3): how often was this link added to the 722 wikipedia that are watched.
 * 3) third number (2): how often did this user add this link to these wikipedia.
 * 4) fourth number (1): to how many wikipedia did this user add this link.

If the third and fourth number are high with respect to the first and/or second number, then that link may be of concern.

The linkwatchers now run on a new database, Eagle 101 is busy transferring the old database into this one, so that the bots again look back to the beginning of me running these bots. Have fun with the analysis of the numbers! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Image SEO
1,233 brandsoftheworld.com--Hu12 (talk) 05:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.brandsoftheworld.com

Looks like a valid source of non-free logos to me. The links come from the mandatory source field of the non-free image rationale, though the existence of Template:Brands of the World SVG may not be a given. MER-C 11:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see, are there any copyvio's here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hu12 (talk • contribs)


 * I randomly sampled a few images and they all appear to meet criteria for the inclusion of non-free content. MER-C 02:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.rock-fotos.de
MER-C 12:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Spammers

spam.hamster-club.com

 * Spammers
 * This IP blanked the report from this page. Nesodak (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This IP blanked the report from this page. Nesodak (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 13:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Still spamming.


 * Additional domains:


 * Deleted article:
 * Guineapigsclub.com


 * Related domains:
 * -- A. B. (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I note also that this spammer used an open proxy:
 * For me, that's always a sign of bad faith editing.
 * -- A. B. (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Also. MER-C 02:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy using Wikipedia to promote his site?
What is the purpose of User:JzG spamming Wikipedia with all of these links to his own website? Is spam condoned if you're an administrator here? - Four Thirty-Nine (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears that the link was in his signature, on further examination. Let us assume spamming was not his intention.  Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He's been blocked as a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet of the banned User:MyWikiBiz.  krimpet ✽  04:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks Krimpet, I'll close. --Hu12 (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.booksforbrats.com
Accounts  WP:SPA accounts with 170+ edits related to The Books for Brats/Michelle Ferguson-Cohen/Little Redhaired Girl Publishing, Inc. The contact email for the site is the same as the Public Relations Contact, Tina...--Hu12 (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.dietingbenefits.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 11:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Additonal related domains:
 * http://www.organicfood-benefits.com
 * http://www.buying-a-mobile-phone.com
 * http://www.albumsthatsuck.com
 * http://spam.baggy-eyelids.com
 * http://spam.brucelee-diet.com
 * http://spam.buying-a-stereo.com
 * http://spam.buying-your-first-house.com
 * http://spam.buyingabathroom.com
 * http://spam.buyingakitchen.com
 * http://spam.buyingalounge.com
 * http://spam.buyingapool.com
 * http://spam.pain-killeraddiction.com
 * http://spam.wakingupinthemorning.com
 * http://spam.yourpersonalhygiene.com
 * Google Adsense ID: 3531039185649008
 * http://spam.buyingakitchen.com
 * http://spam.buyingalounge.com
 * http://spam.buyingapool.com
 * http://spam.pain-killeraddiction.com
 * http://spam.wakingupinthemorning.com
 * http://spam.yourpersonalhygiene.com
 * Google Adsense ID: 3531039185649008
 * http://spam.pain-killeraddiction.com
 * http://spam.wakingupinthemorning.com
 * http://spam.yourpersonalhygiene.com
 * Google Adsense ID: 3531039185649008
 * http://spam.yourpersonalhygiene.com
 * Google Adsense ID: 3531039185649008
 * Google Adsense ID: 3531039185649008


 * Additional account:
 * }


 * 58.110.133.198 (see above) just tried to tamper with these records. -- A. B. (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)