Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Mar 3

ANUS.com
The spam report on ANUS.com suggests asking here about why our link is included in your spam list. I'm curious; I know that WikiPedians have attempted to silence us before but we are not engaging in any spam policy, AND as the oldest web site in existence about underground metal and nihilism, are a worthy source for many articles. Can someone tell me what's going on? www.anus.com (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The report points to a report on WT:WPSPAM (i.e. here) some time ago. It was spammed by user:Sodomator, and hence monitored (see [].  I had a look, and I don't see any obvious spamming (anymore), and therefore removed the rules, and the report.  Hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Usernames that contain a domain or imply a web address are not allowed please change your "displayed" name. --Hu12 (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.sarkilarim.net

 * Spammers

MER-C 11:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.fixallroofs.com http://spam.buyliquidroof.com http://spam.epdmcoatings.com

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 11:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Added to XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.hepcmo.org

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.chcf.org


User's contributions consist primary of link to his eponymous website. Nesodak (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

systemid.com

 * 
 * 
 * 

This shared IP seems to be a continued source of SPAM. Warnings were posted to the IP's talk page in July 2007 and September 2007. --Berkland (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Global Sports Media

 * http://spam.soccerway.com
 * http://spam.f1way.com
 * http://spam.globalsportsmedia.com
 * http://spam.hockeyway.com
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Smart Traffic Ltd. (Cornwall) spam on Wikipedia

 * Spammed domains:


 * Account:
 * Cross-wiki spam:
 * wikt:en:Special:Contributions/86.136.120.44
 * wikt:en:Special:Contributions/86.136.120.44


 * Related domains:


 * Google Adsense IDs:
 * 3651094595088074
 * 6799658352678478

-- A. B. (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

68.89.78.180 spamming Rainbow Gathering and Rainbow Family
Per the talk page on Rainbow Gathering the spam links which this IP repeatedly adds to the above articles are non-notable, have no reliable sources and are against consensus. IP has been repeatedly isssued final warnings yet continues. Bstone (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Adsense pub-9204388014767859 again

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


 * Adsense IDs
 * pub-9204388014767859
 * pub-0026297079428564 (heathledger.com has this adsense pub, which is different from the rest. The site layout is also different. On the other hand, it was definitely spammed.)


 * Sites spammed

The following spam is not all that mouldy.




 * Spammers

See also Suspected sock puppets/Bri1039. Local blacklisting requested. MER-C 06:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

carmelvision.com
It is being used in the present for advertising here and used in the past at Contact manager. Reported by: Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 14:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Spammers
 * (suspected sockpuppet of Eberline)
 * (suspected sockpuppet of Eberline)

spam.jobs2web.com
THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!!! I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS!! MAYBE BECAUSE I AM ADDING SEVERAL LINKS, THOUGH THEY ARE ON DIFFERENT PAGES AND THE SITES ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AS WELL, DESPITE THEIR SIMILAR URLs. PLEASE VISIT Katr67 or Edgar181 talk pages for more of my thoughts on me being unfairly "framed" of spamming. I think everyone around here is a little over-obsessive about spam. If people just checked out the links for themselves, I'll bet this whole crazy, chintzy "spam-alert" page wouldn't be half as long as it is. Yeah, there is spam out there, but like I said, everyone's getting a bit too paranoid, to the point of useful information being deleted left and right. Oh and P.S. if I am sitting here taking the time to try and plead my case, I probably am a legitimate human who's trying to add legitimate info, and not a bot or a spammer. Oops, I hope I didn't make anyone jump by saying the dreaded word of evil...SPAMMER!!! Hehehe jk. And P.P.S. How do I get my links re-added? I really have spent quite a bit of time on them and it would be great if it wasn't all a complete waste. Lots of people, including me, would like to see them on there. Thanks, Career Genie (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't get your links re-added. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * User


 * Link


 * Reincarnation of a previous spammer. I'm too lazy to look through the archives right now. Katr67 (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I found a couple additional links used that appear related. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I found a couple additional links used that appear related. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I found a couple additional links used that appear related. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Link to previous report on these and several additional links: WT:WPSPAM#/2007_Archive_Nov_1#spam.jobs2web.com. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Nov 1

Also:User_talk:Edgar181#.22Inappropriate.22_links.3F_No.2C_not_at_all_really.... And I quote: "...these companies won't be happy if their career sites aren't showing up on here." Katr67 (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm adding these to the BL--Hu12 (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Spamming of http://spam.adamsmithacademy.org

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.drewmarshall.ca
Accounts
 * Diffs:, and many more ... richi (hello) 20:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Diffs:, and many more ... richi (hello) 20:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

axiomsedge-scifi.com
Reported by Nesodak (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * User
 * User

farecompare.com


over 700 links to a commercial site with very little content. spam or not? βcommand 22:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * These appear to be intended to provide a list of destinations from the airport articles from which they're linked; but I would expect that a much less spammy source for the data would be a viable option - the official sites for the airports come to mind as a key possibility. Looking over the articles, they appear to fall into the domain of either WP:AVIATION or WP:AIRPORT, would it be appropriate to contact those projects in this case? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

vizads.com myclassifiedads.net provenmodels.com

 * Spam pages


 * Adsense IDs
 * pub-3582499126667572
 * pub-4880794652263383


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 11:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Added a spammer., now blacklisted. MER-C 03:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.indiapicks.com

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 11:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with my site
Hi everybody, i have the following problem: I maintain a personal website cloeser.org, am user of amongst others the de-wikipedia and for some time now listed on WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/cloeser.org because of me linking to my site from wp-articles. No problem so far. But it seems that the listing on the spam project makes google decrease my websites' ranking on google search. Whereas for some search terms my site was under the top ten until recently, my site now disappeared from the google index at all. This is unusual for a normal google-dance, so my only idea is that it must have something to do with the spam listing on this project. Maybe googlebot just picks up the word "spam" and associates it to my site, since the background of this project is not machinereadable?

So what can be done? Will the spam-entries be deleted as soon as I delete the links from the wp-articles? (which actually is not such a good option, since the links are mostly references to passages in those articles and as such are needed) --C.Löser (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

btw: it seems the bot doesn't pick up those linkings which are made to articles in the user-namespace and then moved into the article-namespace, this gap should be closed.
 * nice catch by the bot. You should not be linking to your own site, its a conflict of interest. βcommand 12:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * May be, but we are talking about de-wp here and their guidelines. My links are good as long as there are no better. But back to the problem: What can be done to prevent googlebot from misunderstanding my site being listed here? --C.Löser (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * this does not effect your google rating. all it does is bring up the report when googling your site. βcommand 12:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * okay thanks, i hope google goes back to normal soon then. --C.Löser (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed the report, and whitelisted you, and removed the link from the monitor list. Though the bot is designed to catch the bad stuff, it sometimes also picks up good links (in this case correctly, though, indeed, the de wikipedia is not strict on conflict of interest as far as I could find).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Lighthouse spam?

 * user:7&6=thirteen (contributions) (note, the "&" symbol in their user name breaks most templates that can provide user name links)
 * user:7&6=thirteen (contributions) (note, the "&" symbol in their user name breaks most templates that can provide user name links)


 * Opinions on this? The user has been posting the same link to multiple city articles - appears spam to me, but would like another set of eyes to take a look. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Those links seem to have bibliographic content that would be useful for talk pages ("Hey, here's a list of sources that could help us improve this article."), but the actual information could easily be incorporated into the relevant articles instead of linked.  And 7&6=thirteen seems to be placing them, at least sometimes, in articles that are not really relevant. —Zeagler (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Manually added a link to the user's contributions (above) ... appears that roughly 100 links to http://clarke.cmich.edu/lighthouses/lhtime1.htm have been added today by this user. See also the user's comments at Talk:Marquette%2C_Michigan. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If used as a citation in several articles, or noted on a project page, however slapping a link to every related topic brings WP:NOT front and center.--Hu12 (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Assorted Indian spamming
I followed up on some previously reported clusters of Indian spam domains:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Aug
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Aug
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Oct 2
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2007
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Jan 1

I found additional domains and accounts:


 * Accounts:


 * Domains to be blacklisted:

These are in use in relevant locations or have also been used by regular editors.
 * Spammed domains not blacklisted now;
 * http://spam.asiarooms.com
 * http://spam.autoexpo.in
 * http://spam.internationalhospitalityfair.in
 * http://spam.marutidrivingschool.com
 * http://spam.mapsofindia.com
 * http://spam.marutidrivingschool.com
 * http://spam.mapsofindia.com
 * http://spam.mapsofindia.com
 * http://spam.mapsofindia.com


 * Deleted articles:
 * Asiarooms
 * Christmascarnivals.com
 * Itpreneurs
 * Turnkey Software Projects

-- A. B. (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Google Adsense IDs:
 * 0568660038414983
 * 0641096029648877
 * 2952717955271864
 * 3046684426260216
 * 3801099524241370
 * 3991585451485255
 * 7098276833061534
 * 9602548474554616
 * --corrected 22:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC) by A. B. (talk)


 * Additional related domains found at www.infobase.co.in/network-portals.html (a sample of their 1500 sites):
 * I will blacklist these when I have time:


 * These sites from the same list have a number of links and I don't have time to clean them up and blacklist them:
 * http://spam.123independenceday.com
 * http://spam.123mahashivratri.com
 * http://spam.automobileindia.com
 * http://spam.headlinesindia.com
 * http://spam.indfy.com
 * http://spam.sendrakhi.com
 * http://spam.sportsofworld.com
 * http://spam.indfy.com
 * http://spam.sendrakhi.com
 * http://spam.sportsofworld.com
 * http://spam.sendrakhi.com
 * http://spam.sportsofworld.com
 * http://spam.sportsofworld.com


 * The sites on that list led me to still more which I will blacklist:


 * More Adsense IDs:
 * 4571770495669601
 * 9285504505250072
 * -- A. B. (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * More accounts and one more domain:


 * -- A. B. (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * -- all domains now blacklisted except as noted above. -- A. B. (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

CheerDesign
Please see the following example at the cheerleading article. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

searchwidgets.googlepages.com
Adsense pub-4014397718282643
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

cruisedealership.com

 * http://spam.cruisedealership.com/




 * Found this link being applied to multiple cruise line articles. Pure advertising content, no encyclopedic value that I can see.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

spam.croatia-map.net

 * Spammers

MER-C 09:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * User 78.2.119.175 and link reported for X-wiki (meta diff). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

, now blacklisted. MER-C 13:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Television episode spam

 * User
 * Domains
 * Domains

Reported by Kelly  hi! 10:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Adsense ID: 3260161204688411
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

BrainWare Consulting (India)
Adsense pub-6699476057051045 (Iceland cars only)

http://spam.brainware-india.com


 * Spam pages

http://spam.superjumbopro.com http://spam.webguru-india.com http://spam.klipz.tv http://spam.quality-web-solutions.com http://spam.carhireinreykjavik.com
 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 13:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

spam.venezuelan-black.co.uk
A dynamic IP spammer keeps replacing the official site (venezuelanblack.com) with their imitation site in the Willie Harcourt-Cooze article. Final warning ignored - User_talk:212.183.134.129. Diffs -. AIV seems pointless and page protection severe, given that this is the only problem editing on this article. Can it be blacklisted ? Cheers -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 20:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

BLOG spam
Adsense pub-9875537653898138
 * http://spam.coin--collecting--tips.blogspot.com
 * http://spam.benefits--of--yoga.blogspot.com
 * http://spam.web-conferencing-101.blogspot.com
 * http://spam.overcome-procrastination.blogspot.com
 * http://spam.stamp--collecting--tips.blogspot.com
 * http://spam.boost--your--metabolism.blogspot.com
 * http://spam.nomedicalexamlifeinsurance.blogspot.com
 * http://spam.laser-hair-removal-tips.blogspot.com
 * Blogs Advertises these sites
 * scrapped authors
 * Blogs Advertises these sites
 * scrapped authors
 * Blogs Advertises these sites
 * scrapped authors
 * Blogs Advertises these sites
 * scrapped authors
 * Blogs Advertises these sites
 * scrapped authors
 * scrapped authors
 * scrapped authors
 * scrapped authors
 * scrapped authors
 * scrapped authors
 * scrapped authors
 * scrapped authors
 * scrapped authors

ezinearticles.com/?expert=Peter_Murphy ezinearticles.com/?expert=Paul_Cris ezinearticles.com/?expert=Michael_Nikolica ezinearticles.com/?expert=Nachiketa_Mishra ezinearticles.com/?expert=Elizabeth_Newberry ezinearticles.com/?expert=Shakir_A.
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

brainstormer.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.oldukphotos.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 12:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

68.62.217.75
Continuous spam links. Has been blocked before, once for a day, once for a week; as soon as the block expires, the user comes back and adds the same spam links as before. Tb (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Added link being added by the mentioned anon. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Added link being added by the mentioned anon. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Changing name
Shouldn't you change your name to WikiProject Anti-Spam? With your current name, it sounds like your trying to spam.  Not hing 4 44  23:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Gettysburg College Spamming

 * http://spam.gettysburg.cdmhost.com


 * http://spam.gettysburg.edu
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

GETTYSBURG COLLEGE   GETTYSBURG COLLEGE  GETTYSBURG COLLEGE  GETTYSBURG COLLEGE --Hu12 (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think for this we have to continue blocking the individuals--we shouldnt blacklist an entire college domain. DGG (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is inexplicable to me why an encyclopedia would not want an article to be linked to a library's special collection of material on the article's subject, regardless of who posted the link. If a random editor had placed one of this links, it would not be questioned - it's precisely the kind of link an encyclopedia should have, so to remove the links placed by these people simply because they happen to have a connection to the organization is silly.  If the link is good placed by a random editor, then the link is good.  These people linked relevant collections to the corresponding articles, and to have the links removed, and then hassle them for "spamming" is simply mind-boggling.  It's not  spam , it's  encyclopedia-building . Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  10:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ed, this is not encyclopedia building, this is link spamming, though probably in good faith (Hmm .. odd link placement, see WP:SPAMHOLE). Librarians/musea/archives have their hands on a lot of good information! Yet, here again they choose only to add links. This conflicts with quite some of our policies and guidelines:
 * we are not a linkfarm
 * we are not a directory
 * when you have a conflict of interest in adding links, be carefull and discuss
 * A Web site operator may see many places in Wikipedia where his or her site would be relevant, and quickly add several dozen links to it
 * If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it
 * though written for companies, I think it also applies to all other provit and non-provit organisations, please discuss on talkpages

Yet, as you conclude, we are writing an encyclopedia here, which is based on content. So in your opinion every library/university/museum/archive with relevant information in their library/university/museum/archive can add their link to the page, without actually contributing content? I think that also this should be done with care, not only 'commercial spam'!

Now I know, policies and guidelines should be treated with occasional exceptions, but these edits can be questioned against at least 5 policies and guidelines .. at least reason for concern.

Suggestion: get these people involved in a wikiproject, or try to get a discussion with them. That is best done early on (yes, we are again late here, but there are not enough hands, and too many people don't care early on); notify people of our policies and guidelines, and tell them that their information (content) is welcome when presented appropriately (but then, that is difficult if they switch accounts). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * These policies and guidelines are only there to help in the task of building an encyclopedia, and when they get in the way of that task, they should rightly be ignored. With considerations of whether a link is "spam" or not, the primary concern should be the content of the link, and by that most important criteria these links are valid, worthwhile, relevant and helpful to the task of encyclopedia building. If the Library of Congress or the New York Public Library should one day decide that Wikipedia has become the de facto first source of information on the Web, and designate some of their staffers to start linking WP articles to their relevant online collections, that would be a good thing, it would strengthen the encyclopedia, and make it a more useful resource for our readers (the people we're supposed to be serving).  Yet by the prevailing spam standards the quality and efficacy of those links would be ignored, and the linking behavior would be the determining factor, causing those links to be removed and the staffers branded as "spammers."  I submit that is entirely and utterly ridiculous, and that the one and only determinative factor in deciding whether something is spam or not must be the content of the links.  You're letting the tail wag the dog, folks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  21:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutrality is an important objective and one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, Unfortunately conflict of interest editing compromises the neutrality and weakens the encyclopedia. I hope you can see the problem here, why the decision about when it would be beneficial for articles to include particular links should not be left to the representatives or agents of GETTYSBURG COLLEGE, but to neutral non conflicted editors. Looking at the particular accounts contributions, it is evident this is not encyclopedia building, it is link spamming, and defeats the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia.--Hu12 (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If they were editign articles, you might have a point, but where external links are concerned, using COI concerns as a reason to delete is silly if the link has value. That is why I continue to say that the value of the link must be the overriding concern.  If the link is valueless, then it should be removed, but otherwise, you are simply hurting the encyclopedia. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  00:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The overriding concern is Neutrality. Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked, which is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. Spamming "valuble" links is no different than spamming "crap" links and neither scenarios are exempt of official Wikipedia policies and such as NOT. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a a repository of GETTYSBURG COLLEGE links, posted by IP's and accounts associated with GETTYSBURG COLLEGE. In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site.. as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links (these accounts). Link Spamming does not improve the encyclopaedia, it hurts Wikipedia's ability to be NPOV and relevant for its readers.--Hu12 (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear we have very different notions here. It appears to me that you define spam as the result of spamming behavior, no matter what the content, while I define spam by the quality of the content.  That's a fundamental difference, as is my contention, which springs from the idea that serving the reader is our primary task, that quality of links, not linking behavior, COI, neutrality etc. should be our utmost concern, and that it trumps all the other concerns you've brought up. I think it unlikely that we'll change each other's minds, but I would, at least, ask you to pay more attention to the quality of the links when you're going about your patrolling.  It seems probable to me (although I haven't looked specifically) that the vast majority of the stuff you flag and delete is material that we would both agree is not worthy of inclusion, but in those rare times when the material seems valid, even if the behavior fits your definition of spamming, why not take an extra moment to consider whether leaving them in place would be best for the project?  If you can separate the link from the linker, and evaluate the quality of the linkk without consideration of how it actually got there, I think that would be helpful.  Thanks for your thoughts, I appreciate the time you've spent on this dialogue. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  04:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I too appreciate your candor, and believe we both have Wikipedias best interests in mind. I do belive this can be a valuable source when added by Non conflicted and neutral editors. --Hu12 (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The way out of this dispute is discussion. Yes, we have editors here with an acknowledged conflict of interest, we know that, and they edit accordingly.  One of the edits of one of the accounts just added yet another link to an already existing linkfarm, and I keep arguing that very often these links can be used better as references or to draw content from.  If all they want is to be known (yes, I know, bad faith ..), then posting to the talkpages or to a wikiproject is a better way.  All in all, I do believe that these editors are not familiar with our policies and guidelines, and therefore should be guided towards discussion, e.g. working together with a wikiproject.  One of the examples that has been handled in a good and cooperative way is User:VAwebteam, who add a lot of links to their own museum, but know how to decide where and how to use their links and info.
 * Hu12's slapping of the warnings in this case may be a bit overdone in this case (though if they swap accounts and IP they are difficult to 'catch' in the act and there is not much left than warn a bit more strongly and hope they use the same IP again), still, discussion is the way forward, not just letting them add/push/spam their links 'because they are useful'. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

beginner-sql-tutorial.com/plsql-tutorial.com

 * See also - MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November_2007
 * See also - www.beginner-sql-tutorial.com.2Fsql.htm
 * See also - MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2007/11

Adsense pub-9756582730476191
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

beginner-sql-tutorial.com, is a known site that has previously transmitted exploit code. Appears to also be removing compeating tutorial links along with link vandalism. Moving ones own link up is never a sign of good faith.--Hu12 (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

coderecipes.net
Adsense pub-0824680748064651
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

leros related Spam

 * http://spam.in2greece.com blog pub-3925610146743912
 * http://spam.lerosisland.com
 * http://spam.psaropoula.co.uk
 * http://spam.lerosmarina.gr
 * http://spam.leros.org.uk
 * http://spam.paradeisos.co.uk
 * http://spam.ioltravel.co.za
 * http://spam.paradeisos.co.uk
 * http://spam.gotohellas.com
 * http://spam.motoland.gr
 * http://spam.leros.org
 * blog pub-3925610146743912
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

{{{IPSummary|196.209.127.177}} --Hu12 (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.radiocube.com

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

--Hu12 (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

MapWith.Us
Could use a fresh pair of eyes on this in case I'm becoming too invested in seeing this as inappropriate. The promotion (as I see it) included the URL but now seems to be mainly about putting the wikilink to the MapWith.Us article into other articles. Some of them inappropriate in terms of subject and some of them appropriate in terms of subject but without good reason for specifying the particular example.

Accounts involved:

I read this as promotion by sock or meat puppets as all of the accounts' edits seem to involve mentioning MapWith.Us in some way and all accounts started editing within a few days of each other around the beginning of the month.

After this conversation on Talk:Collaborative mapping I thought a fresh pair of eyes might be helpful. -- SiobhanHansa 18:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

SEO and adsense related
Adsense pub-7451700826245351
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

Moving links "up" is never an act of good faith.--Hu12 (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Cross Wiki

--Hu12 (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/24.27.178.252
 * http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.27.178.123
 * http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/87.187.13.117
 * http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Bijdragen/75.34.9.232

secret-shopper-review.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * offto.net/MysteryShopper_51fb
 * Created redirect page to subvert BL.--Hu12 (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Created redirect page to subvert BL.--Hu12 (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.ahyer.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 10:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.goepel.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 10:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.commondatahub.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.digitalscarab.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 10:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Central London Collaborative Forum Spam

 * http://spam.centrallondoncollaborativeforum.com
 * http://spam.collaborativepractice.com
 * http://spam.chambersandpartners.com
 * http://spam.resolution.org.uk
 * http://spam.lawsociety.org.uk
 * http://spam.collablaw.org.uk
 * http://spam.manches.com
 * http://spam.iaml.org
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)