Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2009 Archive Apr 1

1classical.com



 * The account is an spa that only focuses on adding and changing links to this website.  Them From  Space  02:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just added another IP.  Them From  Space  16:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the report. I see this is cross-wiki (and the abuser has received plenty of warnings.
 * Google AdSense ID: 6572758616062898
 * it:Speciale:Contributi/94.36.126.171
 * it:Speciale:Contributi/82.84.159.133
 * fr:Spécial:Contributions/82.84.159.133
 * es:Especial:Contribuciones/82.84.159.133
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

ckbody.com

 * User

I'm new here ... is this spam from an SPA? Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Links added
 * Added LinkSummary for sites added by the user, for easier reference. All appear to be blatant spam to me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What happens now? Has someone got a wonderful tool for zapping these, or do we just manually jump in? If manual, what edit summary would be appropriate? Is removing a spam link a "minor" edit? I don't want to be unnecessarily offensive, and it could be argued that it's just my opinion that it's spam. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Barek. I see you have done all the work, and I've read the project page which answers my questions. Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Added LinkSummary for sites added by the user, for easier reference. All appear to be blatant spam to me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What happens now? Has someone got a wonderful tool for zapping these, or do we just manually jump in? If manual, what edit summary would be appropriate? Is removing a spam link a "minor" edit? I don't want to be unnecessarily offensive, and it could be argued that it's just my opinion that it's spam. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Barek. I see you have done all the work, and I've read the project page which answers my questions. Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Barek. I see you have done all the work, and I've read the project page which answers my questions. Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The user re-added some of the commercial linkspam again today. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional accounts:


 * Related domains:


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

usspecbook.com, dahuipresents.blogspot.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 11:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

nemoinfo.com

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 12:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

games2film.net

 * Spammers

MER-C 00:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

inoldlasvegas.com

 * Links


 * Accounts

SPAs spamming photo repository link to multiple articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

YouTube spammer
is spamming YouTube videos posted by one YouTube account. See my talk page for my discussion with the editor and his refusal edit in line with WP policy. Note: I have also logged a report at WP:ANI over the potential copyvio nature of the videos. TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are the links:
 * www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VWJ_aMDjEg
 * www.youtube.com/watch?v=54wAS0EcSmw
 * www.youtube.com/watch?v=CypuZHiIP7w
 * www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn28nlMOYfg
 * www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-yZtzLcgng
 * www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID_w_tZLh00
 * www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrDihWqbbSY
 * www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtD0V6ADL5Y
 * www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzKBV5piyiw
 * www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm9Ttsn4LUE
 * www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZBmy2H5j7c
 * www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZsfZSsxJuE
 * www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r2bUofxyJY
 * www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZsfZSsxJuE
 * www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r2bUofxyJY


 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive525
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive525


 * I recommend waiting to see if he adds any more links. If so, it will be time to blacklist all of them.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI: proposed external links noticeboard
Discussion at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 51. I encourage everybody to leave their comments there, be they positive, negative or neutral. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

nariphaltan.org



 * See also the following discussions:, , and .  Them From  Space  18:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

--Ckatz chat spy  21:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (blocked as single-purpose sock)
 * (blocked as single-purpose sock)

Undress4Success.com

 * Link


 * Accounts

Accounts adding adverts/linkspam to their site over the past year into multiple articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

http://spam.gisips.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 09:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

EatStopEat.com

 * Link


 * Accounts

Linkspamming for promotional purposes. A COI may also exist, as the username is the same as the author of the book being sold at the link involved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Adsense pub-3747527925092904

 * Sites spammed
 * Scraper site.
 * Scraper site.
 * Scraper site.


 * Spammers
 * Spammer replaced existing links and moved links up.
 * Spammer replaced existing links and moved links up.



MER-C 09:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

http://spam.thespiceisright.co.uk

 * Spammers

MER-C 10:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

http://spam.meettheboss.tv

 * Spammers

MER-C 12:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

greenroofservice.com

 * Links


 * Accounts

User was previously spamming the links to multiple articles; now appears to be turning his userpage into an advert / social networking directory for himself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

ThisIsRealMusic.com
Seems to have been going on for some time. I started digging (and deleting) but can't get through the whole thing right now. Here's what's left. Of the many links I've removed thus far only ONE appears to have been added by someone who wasn't spamming links to the site across multiple articles.

TheJazzDalek (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * additional (some on apparently public computers):
 * TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

uglybettytv.info


The sites (perhaps personal sites?) are being abused as URL shorteners/forwarders to hide affiliate links for Adult FriendFinder and Penthouse (magazine).The edit history of Adult FriendFinder shows the spammer is quite determined, having used many other shorteners, many of which have already been XLinkBot blacklisted or globally blacklisted for the publicly available ones.
 * Spammers

THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

onlinemarketingmanager.be

 * Links

NOTE: the above site redirects to:




 * Accounts

User adding link to a blog via a redirect URL onto multiple articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Repeated dynamic IP vandalism on Starship Troopers 3: Marauder page
We keep having some guy come by, insert his fansite StarshipTroopers3.net, and often simultaneously rewrite the page, deleting any info that would be considered a "negative" review. On his latest attempt, he even removed the Sony DVD link. Unfortunately, the guy uses a dynamic starting with 83. -- meaning that a ban is difficult outside of one through WP:Spam's efforts. I was informed that you folks could block addition of the website completely, and I think that if that happens, the guy will probably give up... though we might see a couple angry days of him vandalizing the page after he discovers he can't add it back in. Thanks in advance for any help on this! Cheers! JasonDUIUC (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Link
 * Added LinkSummaryLive for easier reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Added LinkSummaryLive for easier reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

body2shape.com

 * Links


 * Accounts

Linkspamming to site with which the user appears to have a COI (based on username). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

dpriol.com



 * This editor has been spamming this link in bursts for several months now.  Them  From  Space  18:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

scherenschnitte
I would like to report a spam under external links on scherenschnitte. A modern papercutter, Joe Bagley is directed to a website for self promotion. I also question whether the papercutters guild is also in that catagory. In fact it appears most of these links are to websites. Since I am "black listed as shadyrunstudios.tripod.com others should go my way also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.63.199 (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above user cleared all of the links on the page, which did contain at least three spammy links per WP:EL. However, I restored two that looked reasonably independent (but I am open to correction on this).  I also added some links warning text.   Nelson50 T   13:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

bobshannon.org

 * Links


 * Accounts

User adding links to an internet directory which is a collection of news items (the news entries are actually links to other news agencies that host the stories). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

News International IP
A News International IP is being used to create links, usually in the External Links section of an article, to The Times online archives. See here, and see here for what I've just been trying to undo. It occured to me that a specialist in anti-spamming might have a piece of software that could undo this spam more efficiently than me!  almost - instinct 17:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

guitarchordswebsite.com



 *  Them From  Space  00:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Jayden Powell adding the same link to multiple articles
Hi, I have noticed this user adding the same link http://www.domain.com.au to multiple Sydney suburban articles, possibly hundreds of articles. Before I go ahead and revert the whole lot I may need someone with more knowledge to have a look at it for me. Cheers .        Adam (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)




 * Looks benign to me. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My initial reaction was that this was highly suspect, but on inspection it appears not to be. Macphysto (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

easterislandquest.com

 * Links


 * Accounts

IP that is spamming links onto multiple articles. Promotional / travel guide type content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mfield (Oi!) 16:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional accounts:
 * Cross-wiki:
 * ca:Special:Contributions/89.136.166.225
 * cs:Special:Contributions/89.136.166.225
 * de:Special:Contributions/78.97.146.60
 * de:Special:Contributions/89.136.166.225
 * en:Special:Contributions/78.97.146.60
 * en:Special:Contributions/78.97.144.165
 * en:Special:Contributions/78.96.213.98
 * en:Special:Contributions/89.136.166.225
 * en:Special:Contributions/89.137.227.0
 * en:Special:Contributions/78.96.219.14
 * eo:Special:Contributions/89.137.227.0
 * es:Special:Contributions/78.97.146.60
 * es:Special:Contributions/89.136.166.225
 * es:Special:Contributions/89.137.227.0
 * et:Special:Contributions/89.137.227.0
 * fi:Special:Contributions/89.136.166.225
 * fr:Special:Contributions/89.136.166.225
 * hu:Special:Contributions/78.97.146.60
 * hu:Special:Contributions/89.136.166.225
 * hu:Special:Contributions/89.137.227.0
 * id:Special:Contributions/89.136.166.225
 * it:Special:Contributions/78.97.146.60
 * it:Special:Contributions/89.136.166.225
 * it:Special:Contributions/89.137.227.0
 * lb:Special:Contributions/89.137.227.0
 * lt:Special:Contributions/78.97.146.60
 * nl:Special:Contributions/89.136.166.225
 * nl:Special:Contributions/89.137.227.0
 * nn:Special:Contributions/89.136.166.225
 * no:Special:Contributions/89.137.227.0
 * oc:Special:Contributions/89.137.227.0
 * pl:Special:Contributions/89.136.166.225
 * pt:Special:Contributions/89.136.166.225
 * pt:Special:Contributions/89.137.227.0
 * sl:Special:Contributions/89.136.166.225
 * sl:Special:Contributions/89.137.227.0
 * su:Special:Contributions/89.137.227.0
 * sv:Special:Contributions/89.136.166.225
 * tr:Special:Contributions/89.136.166.225
 * vi:Special:Contributions/89.136.166.225
 * wikt:es:Special:Contributions/89.136.166.225
 * Additional spam domain:
 * Related domains:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * vi:Special:Contributions/89.136.166.225
 * wikt:es:Special:Contributions/89.136.166.225
 * Additional spam domain:
 * Related domains:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Jakkrapoljangin
Spamming primarily on association football related articles. Leave  Sleaves  17:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

fantasybaseballarbitration.com
Links:

Accounts Fantasy sports arbitration service spam. I have fried what is out there, but this is one to watch as they also have player pages on the site.

TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 01:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

psychology.comoj.com

 * Spammed links


 * Spammers

The link (which leads to a site with book downloads) was added to Template:Psych-book-stub which means that a number of articles with that template got the spam link. I've removed it from there but the external links report for the link still includes all the psychology book stubs. In addition, it was added to Portal:Psychology/Web resources, Straight and Crooked Thinking, The Human Animal (1955 book), Rajshahi University, List of psychology topics, Psychology, The Art of Loving and Digital library (and possibly other places). Spamming is still going on as I'm typing this. Warning the editors doesn't help. --bonadea contributions talk 16:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I added some other URLs being used to link to the site. Dancter (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And another IP added - 119.30.36.60 became active after 119.30.36.52 got its final warning for spam. --bonadea contributions talk 08:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And now 119.30.36.51 too. --bonadea contributions talk 10:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And 202.56.7.138. --bonadea contributions talk 11:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

See this lovely diff which states in no uncertain terms that s/he will keep inserting the link. Note that each of the IPs, and the registered user, have been warned and given pointers to the external links policy. --bonadea contributions talk 13:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding yet another IP two IPs and another URL. --bonadea contributions talk 17:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * and another URL.... :-( --bonadea contributions talk 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't forget the spam page . MER-C 06:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * since there's been as much or more spam on Wikibooks, too. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, redirects to this URL are still being spammed. freepsychologybooks.tk being today's new addition to the collection. --bonadea contributions talk 10:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

external links from Filmtvfan


I'm posting here to get feedback on the editing habits of User:Filmtvfan. All of his edits have been to link a particular link that he is obviously affiliated with. I see this as spamming. Some other discussions have taken place over the links themselves, but I'd like to get feedback over whether his behaviour of making no edits other than to place an external link is ok. I see his editing pattern as breaking WP:ELNO #4 and WP:LINKSPAM which reads ''Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.'' I'd like anybody here to review his edits and give feedback.  Them From  Space  00:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The previous discussion was at Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 24. The one before that, at New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 10.- gadfium 01:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Anybody want to look at this?  Them From  Space  23:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Special Collections, University of Vermont Library
Can someone else take a look at the contributions of. The links are related to academia, but they are the only edits by the user, so it maybe purposeful. Cheers! -- moe.RON   Let's talk  15:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * These seem constructive to me. The username gives away the user's affiliations, but I think other WP users will benefit from these links. Macphysto (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Precedent is that we do not make a link from everyone who is represented in an archive. We make links selectively from the articles of subjects for whom the archive is in fact the major source of information, just as any other such links. For state public figures, this is indeed likely to be true of the state university library. An alternate method, and I think aq preferred one,  is to give the biographical note there as a reference. DGG (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

http://spam.hilessa.net http://spam.class2mass.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 12:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

vinosearchwine.com

 * Links


 * Accounts


 * Spamming to other language wiki projects
 * el:Special:Contributions/213.174.185.150
 * es:Special:Contributions/213.174.185.150
 * fr:Special:Contributions/213.174.185.150
 * it:Special:Contributions/213.174.185.150
 * ja:Special:Contributions/213.174.185.150
 * ko:Special:Contributions/213.174.185.150
 * nl:Special:Contributions/213.174.185.150
 * pt:Special:Contributions/213.174.185.150
 * ru:Special:Contributions/213.174.185.150

Cross-wiki spamming of same link to muliple wiki projects. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Requested blacklisting at meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * by by Finnrind. Cheers. Dferg &#x260E; 20:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

themusicmagazine.co.uk

 * Links


 * Accounts

Music review/interview site spammed onto music articles. TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Public Relations Student Society of America
Hi folks, I'd like to get a second opinion on this article. The lower two-thirds of the article looks like a brochure for an upcoming event, including admission costs, and schedule of events. I've cleared it twice and warned the 2 users involved (1 IP and 1 SPA). I'm hesitant to continue reverting, as 3RR is a bit grey when it comes to this as being "blatant vandalism". Thoughts? Arakunem Talk 01:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it looks OK now, could perhaps be tagged as a stub. I note that it was previously deleted so maybe tagging it for AfD is an option.  It's also orphaned, with very few wikilinks to it. I'll keep an eye on it as well.  Nelson50 T   10:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

wirelessbollinger.com

 * Links


 * Accounts



Yet another in an apparently long line of online music zines being spammed into music articles. These are only the ones I've found so far, tons of links left to check out. TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Added more IPs and 2 users above. TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 03:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

natgeomaps.com

 * Link


 * Accounts

Users adding links for the purchase of various National Geographic maps. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

shoecrawler.com and bluespipe.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 13:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

http://spam.metricstream.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 09:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Spammer
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernist (talk • contribs) 11:14, 13 April 2009
 * Accounts


 * links
 * Added LinkSummary for easier reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Added LinkSummary for easier reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

streams.wgbh.org

 * Links


 * Accounts

Some of these links may be appropriate in some articles; but they seem to be getting added to articles which are only partially related to the subject. Also, the addition of the link seems to be done primarilly by SPA accounts whose only additions have been links to the audio recordings. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And the IP is WGBH. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch. WHOIS - 204.152.13.129 does show the IP to belong to WGBH Educational Foundation, so a clear WP:COI in adding the links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Any opinions on the appropriateness of these links? Most appear to be interviews with specific individuals.  I suspect that the user accounts are related to the IPs, but can't prove it - so a COI is likely but not confirmed (unless a checkuser is requested - but I don't think there's adequate reason to get one at this point).
 * The users are clearly SPA and spamming the interviews to articles either about the subject being interviewed, or to articles about a subject to which the interviewee is linked in some way. In some cases, this is resulting in a series of WGBH interview link - as some users are interviewed multiple times - or multiple persons are related to the same subjects.
 * My initial reaction is to want to remove all of the spammed links and allow regular contributors to review/discuss the links to see if they should be re-added on a case-by-case basis. But, I want other opinions on these links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Spam by Anuttamadasi
User adds a spam site http://www.harekrsna.org every post. Warned and to be watched. Wikidās ॐ 17:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Links
 * Added LinkSummary for easier reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Added LinkSummary for easier reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

fsexpeditions.com

 * Links


 * Accounts

User spamming commercial linkspam adverts to multiple articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

web-trafficschool.com

 * Links


 * Accounts

Links to the site have been spammed to multiple articles relating to driver safety and education for several months. Dancter (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

New user added external links

 * User


 * Link

I am not sure if this external link is appropriate, but it is being added to a number of articles. This is my first time on this board, so I apologize if this is not correct. Anyways, thank you, Tom (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the link is fine, however I hope the editor will add something besides it to Wikipedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? A user with the same name as the website that he's added to 11 different articles, and those are his only edits? Looks like linkspam to me, even if there's nothing inherently wrong with the site. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anybody know anything about the web site, ie editorial oversight, who they are and if they have some agenda to promote, ect., ect.? I personally don't believe a thing on the interenet :) --Tom (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's spam too, if the contributor is Robert Warren, which would raise concerns about WP:COI. The website itself is interesting, probably fairly authoritative, but lacks references.  I certainly did not care for his tone here. But what best to do about it?  I believe it's likely he will keep finding articles that "deserve" a link.   Nelson50 T   17:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While I understand the concern about COI, I do think that the links are relevant and should stay. Even if its the author of the website advertising it, it benefits Wikipedia, too. That said, the best outcome would be for the author to license his site under a free license and edit Wikipedia; in the end, 9 out of 10 people will use Wikipedia, not his site, to acquire the information anyway... personally I consider such sites a rather wasted effort in the first place. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with the links themselves - although I would like to see better documentation of the authority/sources of the site - but otherwise the additions appear to be on appropriate articles and contain appropriate content for the external links section. However, the editing pattern of the editor does concern me.  There is a possible WP:COI, and his comments border on uncivil.  Also, once removed, he should have taken discussion of the links to the individual talk pages rather than simply re-adding them.  I would hope that he would make content additions to the articles in the future, and hopefully learn to work better in a cooperative environment. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My name is Robert Warren. Myself, and a small group of volunteers have been translating and editing http://www.doomedsoldiers.com for style and consistency as well as adding editorial/opinion content, plainly noted as such.  Doomed Soldiers is essentially a translation of http://podziemiezbrojne.blox.pl, created from source documents, and supported by research. We have translated and edited this with permission for distribution to the wider English speaking world.  The www.doomedsoldiers.com is a nonprofit, volunteer-maintained website offering English-speaking readers access to previously unpublished materials in the Polish language.


 * One important stylistic decision was the incorporation of Polish language names, organizations and places. It is as important that public at-large become as familiar with AK/Armia Krajowa/NSZ/WiN as thy are with Wehrmacht; and UB/Urzad Bezpieczenstwa, or SS, Gestapo, and NKVD. These recent names are as important to conversance in the subject matter as are legions, alae, foederati, magister militum, etc. to any capable study of Roman political-military history.


 * As such, www.doomedsoldiers.com follows the important conventions in historical narrative - documentation; terminology; vividness in detail; respect and consideration for colleagues. This makes it an important link off the Wikipedia pages and a pathway through which the reader can obtain still more information. Some content on www.doomedsoldiers.com is indeed editorial/opinion, most notably the page responding to allegations that the Holocaust was some sort of a hoax, which we wanted to mount a vigorous response to. Thus, it is clear that www.doomedsoldiers.com should be added/restated on relevant pages.


 * Best Regards,


 * Robert Warren Doomed Soldiers (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * All quiet on the "western front" ... Any comments and/or suggestions please? While we feel that the specific links suggested before were very much appropriate and complimented the very specific pages on which they were placed, I will refrain from re-instating them until I have some sort of feedback from you gentlemen.  Please advise. Best, Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the problem: There are many thousands of quite good web sites (or sites that appear to be useful; each of us would need to spend half an hour to be sure). Wikipedia provides free high-value links, so the only way to avoid an avalanche of linkspam is to rigorously prune external links, particularly when added by single-purpose accounts. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my note above on concerns about WP:SPAM and WP:COI. I would much prefer you to add content at which I'm sure you could excel, rather than exclusively adding links.  I welcome your engagement here.  Thanks  Nelson50 T   09:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. After very carefully reading some of the responses to my post, I am genuinely uncertain why a well documented historical resource such as the doomedsoldiers.com would constitute a COI? I also fail to understand the “Single Purpose Account” concern? What prompted me (in good faith) to add links to the website was an impression that it was Wiki’s goal to provide its visitors with valuable and well documented resources. I’ll restate again that: 1)	The Doomed Soldiers seeks no monetary gains thorough its voluntary efforts, 2)	It does not “advertise” an agenda of any type, 3)	It provides well documented, expert-written content, 4)	Through its voluntary efforts, the Doomed Soldiers provides access to the historical research that is → unavailable ←  outside of Wiki.

I believe that if external links to the DoomedSoldiers.com website are to be “banned”, so should be other external links appearing in the articles. What is the editorial policy for allowing one website to “advertise” its content, and not the other? Is this editorial policy clearly stated, and where? What kind of "advertising" is the Doomed Soldiers website engaged in? My impression so far is that despite some of the lofty pronouncements, what is taking place here is neither collaborative, nor is in the best interest of Wiki, or its readership. Case in point: "The website itself is interesting, probably fairly authoritative, but lacks references." What references are missing from this website? The great majority of the content on the website WAS and IS written by well regarded authorities on these very subject matters, and not by "weekend historians" ... Similarly, the great majority of these excellent and well documented research papers have not been translated into English language and are available -->ONLY<-- through the Doomed Soldiers website? Similarly puzzling is this comment, "personally I consider such sites a rather wasted effort in the first place". My humble perception of this very time-consuming effort is that it should be applauded rather than belittled for it required far more effort on the part of its volunteer participants than recycling well known facts ad infinitum and dressing them up as "research"? Furthermore, I am uncertain how to interpret the following comment: "Wikipedia provides free high-value links, so the only way to avoid an avalanche of linkspam is to rigorously prune external links, particularly when added by single-purpose accounts."? The one and the only "single purpose" of myself, is to enhance the value of the few articles to which the external links were added, and to contribute to the Wiki's quality content. Similarly, "Here is the problem: There are many thousands of quite good web sites" - We are in agreement. There are many very fine websites out there, however, what makes the Doomed Soldiers unique in this particular context is: 1) our volunteers translate and publish historical research articles that are related to the subject matter of the Wiki articles which will be otherwise unavailable to the English speaking visitors, 2) it seeks no monetary gains of any kind, 3) it enhances value of the Wiki articles by providing access to bona fide academic research conducted by bona fide historians, and experts in this field that would otherwise be unavailable.

While it was and still is our intent to become part of this community and to contribute our time and expertise (yes, that would include content) to many of the fine articles here, the uninviting and clearly hostile  reception received here is puzzling at best. As noted elsewhere, I will refrain from re-posing links until further advised.

Following are the specific articles to which I would like to add external references which at least in few instances offer --> WELL RESEARCHED AND WELL DOCUMENTED <-- content unavailable outside of Wiki :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_crime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witold_Pilecki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Armed_Forces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Public_Security_of_Poland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armia_Krajowa

I would appreciate an advisement if this particular situation warrants an arbitration on and or outside of Wiki. Your advisement and/or suggestions are very much appreciated.

Regards, Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First, DoomedSoldiers' username violates WP:U. For this in combination with the spamming and coi problems, the account could be indefinitely blocked. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Second, this a clear WP:COI violation. If DoomedSoldiers is unable to understand why, then a discussion should be started at WP:COIN. --Ronz (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that I should, or should have had created another account i.e. under my own name: Robert Warren?  I am open to suggestions, and thank you for your advisement.  RE: Arbitration, I welcome that opportunity. Best, Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting you change your username per WP:UNC. WP:REALNAME explains the problems with using your own name. --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. Can you kindly point me to the location on Wiki where I can request WP:COIN arbitration? Thanks, Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Trust me, there are hundreds of people who look and act like you, but who have none of your good intentions. These other people (peruse this page for examples) simply want to exploit the work of volunteers who have built Wikipedia. I'm pretty new here, but my suggestion would be to forget any arbitration because Wikipedia has well-defined COI rules which you definitely breach. It probably seems harsh to you, but there is no alternative method by which Wikipedia can be defended. My guess is that there are two ways to progress: First, you could change your user name and spend at least three months contributing, so it is clear that you value the encyclopedia, want to help, and have become familiar with some of the procedures. Then, you could add a small number of links. The second, and better, method would be to find an editor who has an established interest in the field, and contact them on their talk page. You would briefly explain the situation, and ask for assistance: would that editor mind having a look at [give links] and if they think it worthwhile, add them to the articles. In theory, this should be done on the talk page of each article, but I think what I suggested would be OK in this case. If you can't find such an editor, put the information on my talk page and I'll have a look (but I don't edit in that area and so if I start adding external links, people are going to wonder why). Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions Johnuniq ;) What was intended as a genuine desire to enhance several Wiki pages unfortunately turned into a hoopla - and as such have consumed way too much of my productive time as it is. I appreciate your kind words.  Take a look at the website if you have a minute.  It truly is a great source of information on the subject matter of Polish underground. Needless to say, if you do speak Polish, we are always looking for "few good men" to help with translation.  Be well, Robert Doomed Soldiers (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

WITNESS spam

 * Single-purpose account designed to promote this organization. I warned him that what he was doing was inappropriate but he continued the advocacy.  Them From  Space  01:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Single-purpose account designed to promote this organization. I warned him that what he was doing was inappropriate but he continued the advocacy.  Them From  Space  01:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Single-purpose account designed to promote this organization. I warned him that what he was doing was inappropriate but he continued the advocacy.  Them From  Space  01:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

applebatch.com

 * Links


 * Accounts

SPA accounts spamming forum/networking site to multiple articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Spam article:
 * Teacher networks
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

srilankatrekking.com

 * Link


 * Linkers

I have came across this link repeatedly in some Sri Lanka-related articles.--Chanaka L (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Spam articles:
 * Trekking in Sri Lanka
 * Sri Lanka Trekking
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

sabritextiles.com

 * Spammed links


 * Spammers
 * Unrelated. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * etc.
 * Unrelated. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * etc.
 * Unrelated. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * etc.
 * etc.
 * etc.

In articles about canvas and Kasur (and maybe others, didn't check the rest of contributions made from those IPs).

--Yerpo (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * More spam accounts
 * wikt:en:Special:Contributions/116.71.175.123
 * wikt:en:Special:Contributions/116.71.175.123
 * wikt:en:Special:Contributions/116.71.175.123
 * wikt:en:Special:Contributions/116.71.175.123
 * wikt:en:Special:Contributions/116.71.175.123
 * wikt:en:Special:Contributions/116.71.175.123
 * wikt:en:Special:Contributions/116.71.175.123


 * Public domain registration data:
 * Al-Farooq Enterprises
 * Nizam Pura Road, Chiragh Shah Town,
 * Kasur, Pakistan
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Massive spam
USER Cute_koala's contribs: are nothing but links to "Kidzworld". Needs to be undone, and account blocked by an admin. --Janke | Talk 20:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Link
 * Account
 * Added summary links for easier reference/review. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Added summary links for easier reference/review. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Added summary links for easier reference/review. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Added summary links for easier reference/review. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also note the amazing amount of external links to the kidzworld site: --Janke | Talk 17:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I notice that visiting Kidzworld shows that an article along the lines of "There is a website called KidzWorld where kids can create their own blog, post videos, and post pictures" has been created and deleted five times (last occasion 17 April 2009). Can someone provide some guidance on what should happen with the 212 links to kidzworld? I'm wondering how carefully I should check each link to see how helpful it is because I see that a few could be argued over. Look at the way "kidzworld" has been woven into Lego Star Wars: The Video Game. Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Kidzworld.com is a content based site with over 15,000 quality articles that have the ability to raise the bar of many articles and provide the appropriate knowledge for users. The area of the site where users create content is "The Kw Zone" and this is not where these links are coming from. Kidzworld has high quality writers and has over 10 years of providing quality content for their users.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.38.32.70 (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Another account:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

easemd.com

 * Links


 * Accounts

After I removed phone numbers and commercial links from various health record articles per WP:NOTDIR, the user has resorted to falsifying information on the creator of eClinicalWorks in order to insert a commercial link to its site for purchasing software. Link has no encylopedic value. Dancter (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Spam articles:
 * EaseMD
 * EaseMD Systems
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

lockbumping.org

 * Links


 * Accounts


 * The 69.* and 76.* ips are one-time edits. 70.232.17.34 has added the link five times since Nov'07, removes competing links, and has spammed other links to sites run by the same organization. I think this should be blacklisted. Anyone disagree? --Ronz (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is protected and 70.232.17.34 has been blocked. MediaWiki blacklisting has been requested: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikilink spam to an article that is written like an advertisement
The article itself, R+L Carriers, is currently written like an advertisement, but is probably salvageable. If you look at the user's contributions, all he's done is create the article, and add lots of wikilinks to this article. For example, he's changed R+L Carriers New Orleans Bowl to R+L Carriers New Orleans Bowl all over the place, but the modified articles don't care about the company - only the bowl game. Not sure what we do about the user here, but we should probably get all those contribs reverted. DeFaultRyan 00:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Deleted for being a copyvio (a recurring problem for this article). TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Kelsievans

 * Link
 * Account
 * Account

I'd like another editor's opinion on his editing before taking any action. I'm not going to give my opinion until then to avoid biasing this any more than necessary. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the standard link above because I'm sure this is a clear case of linkspam. I see that the user has commented on your talk page, and may indeed have wonderful motivations. However, the user's behavior is indistinguishable from a spammer, and I don't think we can start saying "spamming *.com is bad, but it's ok to spam with links to *.edu because it's for a good cause".
 * I see that the user has created a bunch of BLP pages. I don't understand all the creaking bureaucracy regarding BLPs, but a few I looked at seemed to be candidates for speedy deletion on the grounds that they make no assertion of notability (I think ). Johnuniq (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My attempt with was a bit naive. This linksearch is a more relevant. Johnuniq (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help.
 * I agree. Basically, he's been spamming links to a library, not just in the external links sections but within articles, including sections of his own making, sourced only by his library links.  Even when he's not spamming outright, the links are usually violating WP:SELFPUB. --Ronz (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

antiwrinkletrials.com

 * Ad site being spammed by ip's to Anti-aging and Anti-aging cream .  I see no reason not to just blacklist it given the site content and the manner in which it is being spammed. --Ronz (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ad site being spammed by ip's to Anti-aging and Anti-aging cream .  I see no reason not to just blacklist it given the site content and the manner in which it is being spammed. --Ronz (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Has the spammer gotten several warnings? If so, I'll be happy to blacklist. Otherwise, I'd lay some warnings on him first. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Two had been. I just warned 70.53.94.142, who looks to be the same editor using a dynamic ip. --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Two had been. I just warned 70.53.94.142, who looks to be the same editor using a dynamic ip. --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Two had been. I just warned 70.53.94.142, who looks to be the same editor using a dynamic ip. --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Two had been. I just warned 70.53.94.142, who looks to be the same editor using a dynamic ip. --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

indiancareerclub.com

 * Accounts

Could this have any merit? Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * links
 * Nope. Also:


 * Spam pages


 * Spammers


 * MER-C 09:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Related domains:


 * Possibly related domain:


 * Public domain registration:
 * Vaxgen Technologies
 * 46, Arokya Nagar
 * Opp new busstand
 * Thanjavur, 613005
 * India


 * Reference:
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist (permanent link)


 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

photosynth.net

 * Link


 * Accounts

Multiple SPA accounts (short term use on each - each appears to be abandoned after a few days) spamming links that don't expand on what's already in the articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

musicomh.com

 * Links


 * Accounts

Yet another online music zine spammed across Wikipedia. Almost 700 links remain. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

babylon.com
Sampling of links (118 to date) doesn't show me anything that adds value to the article linked from. Thanks. CliffC (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

validea.com

 * Links


 * Accounts

Commercial linkspam and Investing blog added by same users to multiple articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Related domains:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

boozemonkey.com

 * Link


 * Accounts

User adding link into multiple articles for a social networking website for Australian & NZ wine enthusiasts. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That user's deleted contributions (unfortunately accessible only by admins) leads to some more stuff:


 * Domains:


 * Related domains:


 * Related article:
 * Yumi Gunji


 * Deleted pages:
 * Print Monkey
 * Biznis Cards
 * Bedtime Eyes


 * Related accounts:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

naturbildarchiv-guenter.de

 * Links


 * Accounts

SPA user spamming links onto multiple articles to a photo-blog. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

gdptemples.com
Adsense pub-7324502932785285


 * Spammers

MER-C 02:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * These links have been spammed widely to articles with no immediate relevance to the temple that owns the site. This has been done in spite of numerous requests and warnings to stop.


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

fcsteaua.ro

 * Spammers

MER-C 07:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Conficker article linkspam
Spammers

Links
 * Google Adsense ID: 2630625564915940
 * Google Adsense ID: 2630625564915940


 * Google Adsense ID: 0880559563910375
 * Google Adsense ID: 0880559563910375


 * Google Adsense ID: 0880559563910375
 * Google Adsense ID: 0880559563910375


 * Also:
 * Google Adsense ID: 9728090288479206
 * Google Adsense ID: 9728090288479206
 * Google Adsense ID: 9728090288479206
 * Google Adsense ID: 9728090288479206
 * Google Adsense ID: 9728090288479206
 * Google Adsense ID: 9728090288479206


 * Related domains:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * all 52 domains now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

12.237.176.130
Editor has only contributed external link spam. Has recieved numerous warnings including a final warning and 3RR warning for Gracie Allen, which it has ignored. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * -- both domains now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Adsense directory spamming
Adsense pub-0226617520403675 unless otherwise indicated


 * Sites spammed

Adsense pub-7552525023110583

Adsense pub-9013816795930223

Adsense pub-6980757211436055

No Adsense:
 * redirecting to...
 * redirecting to...




 * Related domains


 * Spammers

Look what the Easter bunny gave me! MER-C 13:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's quite a haul!


 * I found one more link that was spammed:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Some more related domains:
 * 0748165997036817
 * 0748165997036817
 * 0748165997036817
 * 0748165997036817
 * 0748165997036817
 * 0748165997036817
 * 0748165997036817
 * 0748165997036817
 * 0748165997036817
 * 0748165997036817
 * 0748165997036817
 * 0748165997036817
 * 0748165997036817
 * 0748165997036817


 * More accounts:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * -- all 63 domains now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

easy2source

 * Accounts

At first I thought it was a copyvio, but I guess it's just linkspam? Johnuniq (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * links


 * Google AdSense ID: 1335830646753803


 * Additional spammed domains:


 * Related domains:


 * Possibly related domain:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * all domains except adityainfotech.com are now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

ihateyoualicia.com



 * Spammers

An IP hopper on Xtra (ISP) is cycling through domains that forward to AdultFriendFinder.com with his referral, as is most easily seen in the edit history Adult FriendFinder. A previous report is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2009_Archive_Apr_1. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Previously reported:


 * Also spammed:


 * Related domains:
 * Google AdSense ID9501290720485055
 * Google AdSense ID9501290720485055
 * Google AdSense ID9501290720485055
 * Google AdSense ID9501290720485055
 * Google AdSense ID9501290720485055
 * Google AdSense ID9501290720485055
 * Google AdSense ID9501290720485055
 * Google AdSense ID9501290720485055
 * Google AdSense ID9501290720485055


 * Additional accounts:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Honda CX series
Honda CX series is receiving recurrent spam reintroductions by the following user. --Brianhe (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

PayPal referral spam

 * referral:
 * pal=4TC6JSEW6BRT4


 * Accounts


 * article

A user has been repeatedly trying to add a link for "Open new account in PayPal(registration page)" to the PayPal article. However, the link has two issues with WP:EL; first, it contains the referral code pal=4TC6JSEW6BRT4; and second, it's to a page within the paypal.com website which is already linked from the article by an appropriate top level link, so the subpage is not needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added additional IPs that have been involved. There's also an additional IP that's likely involved, as it made an edit to the link that was added by 213.151.47.208 within minutes of the link being added, and it exists within the same IP range as another that has added the link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is x-wiki:
 * w:he:מיוחד:תרומות/Israel28


 * Related domains:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

allsportspeople.com
Apart from the fact that it is a user-contributed database, the content seems heavily borrowed from Wikipedia itself, particularly stats and photographs. Leave  Sleaves  11:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

ITezer.com spam
Domain:

Related domains:

Possibly related domains:

Account: -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

social42.com

 * Link


 * Accounts

User spamming link to a blog containing self-published analysis and commentary; the content of which is cut-and-pasted to articles (copyvio issue). The link is being used as a "ref", but it also fails as a reliable source. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

zimor.com




User is adding links to various charts on this site. The charts claim to be sourced, although there is no way of telling whether its at all accurate. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 01:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

hostels247.com
Very long-term, slow spamming using throwaway accounts and IPs:

Domain:

Accounts:

Spam pages: -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Highest Ever Rock Concert at 56,000 Meters
 * User:Piyagarn