Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2009 Archive Jan 1

akshaytech.com
This link is spammed a lot on web hosting related articles.

diff1

diff2

diff3

diff4

They even created this article Akshay Technologies--Unpopular Opinion (talk) 09:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Tubatuncak


This user has been editing articles and adding links to his website in order to promote it. WP:Spam  PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 21:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

http://x.bib-arch.org

 * Link


 * Account

While this site does have value, the identified IP has been a WP:SPA whose sole purpose has been to place the link into as many articles as possible, even where the linked article provides little to no useful information directly on the article subject. The IP has received over four warnings on this already - yet has thus far not participated in any discussions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

http://spam.development.tv

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

AnalyzerXL http://spam.analyzerxl.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

maselectromedicina.com
Adsense pub-4138084252125247
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts


 * Cross wiki Spamming

es:80.35.36.153 es:85.55.141.15 es:85.55.159.2 es:190.135.196.198 es:190.64.138.52 es:190.64.47.162 es:85.55.147.50 --Hu12 (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Meta request made--Hu12 (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * continued spamming, BL'd locally--Hu12 (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * - blanked this section of the page -- Versa geek  22:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also made an attempt to remove the listing on meta --Hu12 (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

mcwm.org

 * Links


 * Account

A WP:SPA blanketing a museum link to multiple articles. While a handful of these may be appropriate, most are only marginally related to the article subject and fail WP:EL and WP:NOT. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * User is now indef blocked for spamming. Themfromspace (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation Spamming of http://spam.gamblershandbook.net

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * first edit 08:10, 19 January 2008
 * second edit 08:30, 19 January 2008
 * third edit 02:09, 20 January 2008
 * 4th edit 05:15, 21 January 2008
 * 5th edit 05:28, 21 January 2008
 * added two 10:49, 31 January 2008
 * 06:07, 3 February 2008
 * 12:30, 4 June 2008
 * 04:55, 9 June 2008
 * adds three 14:07, 16 June 2008
 * 05:46, 17 June 2008
 * 12:36, 17 June 2008
 * 13:39, 23 June 2008
 * 05:48, 22 December 2008
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard--Hu12 (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

John Nance threatens lawsuit, over legitimate dicussion on his page
John Nance threatens to sue.

The Spam page is the article about John J. Nance, at this URL:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Nance

It appears that the article was started after a previous one was eliminated, because it amounted to plagiarism as it just copied John Nance's mini-bio from another website.

My suspicion is that the current article then was started to get around that previous violation of Wiki rules, by someone very friendly to Nance. At any rate, the current article progressed only by expanding positive information about Nance, his books, his movies, his media appearances, and such. Then links to his official website, and other websites, were attached.

When I first saw this article, I decided that it could become a legitimate Wiki article about this living person, only if there was some discussion about his controversial viewthat Airline Safety had been affected adversely by the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act (ADA).

So, I added a section about that controversial thesis, in his book of Blind Trust.

Nance then responded vehemently, in a style of writing that violated several of the Wiki rules, for posting. I reverted that back, because of those violations of the 5 pillars of Wiki. In response, Nance has now removed all my comments on both the article page and on the talk page and says he will file a lawsuit if anyone dares to put it back.

Please look at these pages, which will show how this Nance article has progressed to a Spam page, and then to a legitimate discussion page and then back to a pure spam page, with nothing but accolades about John J. Nance.

[index.php?title=John_J._Nance&oldid=233229796 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_J._Nance&oldid=233229796]

[index.php?title=John_J._Nance&oldid=259891508 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_J._Nance&oldid=259891508]

[index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=259891508 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=259891508]

This one above, was obviously written by John Nance himself, and it contains the kind of unacceptable style of writing that violates so many Wiki rules.

I then reverted it back at this link:

[index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=260408163 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=260408163]

Then, Nance removed the section about his controversial theory:

[index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=260483001 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=260483001]

Then, Nance removes all reference to that controversial thesis of his book, and continues to add accolades to himself.

[index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=261535529 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=261535529]

Then, I added the Spam warning:

[index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=261547806 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=261547806]

Then, the pertinent history of the Talk Page, for the Nance Article:

My reasons for reverting Nance's response to the Controversial Thesis section:

[index.php?title=Talk:John_J._Nance&direction=prev&oldid=261536334 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_J._Nance&direction=prev&oldid=261536334]

And then, Nance cleaned out the Talk Page and threatened a SLAPP suit, if anyone puts back the comments about his controversial thesis.

[index.php?title=Talk:John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=261157261 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_J._Nance&direction=next&oldid=261157261]

I am amazed at such arrogance. Mr. Nance is apparently insisting that the article about him, be allowed to contain only accolades about him, his books, TV and radio appearances and such. He will permit no comments that make reference to his controversial book and/or why the facts of history appear to prove that thesis incorrect.

Nance is apparently is willing to trample all over the First Amendment to the US Constitution, to enforce his demands, even to the extent that he is threatening a SLAPP lawsuit to silence Wiki. I hope Wiki Administrators will not cave to this kind of terrible intimidation. EditorASC (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that a more appropriate venue for this issue would be at WP:ANI --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've moved the above discussion to WP:ANI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

IP Spammer
Adsense pub-5781457369621957
 * http://spam.endhirantamilmovie.com
 * http://spam.coolvijay.com
 * http://spam.sexysurya.com
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

Vandalising existing links and Moving ones own link "up" is never a sign of good faith.--Hu12 (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Continued, including more Link Vandalism. Blocked 24hrs--Hu12 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Bin95 Recent Spamming
User talk:Bin95 received a final warning for spamming under multiple accounts back in October of 2007. Yesterday, he or she added another couple of spamlinks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quality_costs&diff=261952613&oldid=247139470 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quality_costs&diff=prev&oldid=261951914. See also Special:Contributions/Bin95. Is this actionable? After all, there are theoretically no more warning templates that make sense. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)



Adding tracking templates. Some pretty old stuff, I don't have much in the dataase, on a first inspection. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * List of known users/IP's


 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Kimaldi Electronics Spam http://Spam.kimaldi.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

pivotfarm.com
Adsense pub-9033914976816060
 * http://spam.pivotfarm.com
 * http://spam.supportandresistancetrading.com
 * Articles
 * Articles
 * Articles

Pivot farming
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on this user..adding http://spam.oecd.org
Seems to be an SPA account, adding only links to oecd.org. Not repository seems to apply..--Hu12 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

http use on this page
I understand the concerns of Lustiger seth and why he is removing the http tags from this page; but the use of an http link only causes an issue if the entry is added to the blacklist, and only a small percentage of entries at WT:WPSPAM are actually added to the blacklist. For the rest, the http actually serves a useful purpose. By having the link functional, it's many times easier to locate prior spam reportings of the link via Special:LinkSearch which will then turn up the links in the talk archives pages of WT:WPSPAM.

For the few cases where the entry does get added to the blacklist, it's easy enough to remove the http link at that time. Otherwise, the link eventually gets archived by MiszaBot - as archives shouldn't be edited, the link doesn't cause any problems at that point and are easily picked up by the LinkSearch.

Other opinions on this? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Template:LinkSummary is a wonderful thing.. it provides all the research benefits of a regular http link, without the side effects should the URL be added to the blacklist. -- Versa geek  16:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I've gotten into the habit of not using http here, I've been thinking of starting this same discussion for the same reasons given by Barek. The regular increase in spamming due to the holidays has me thankful that most spammers I encounter aren't very sophisticated in their approach.  Though it hasn't happened often, http links in archived spam reports have been very helpful in tracking down the more sophisticated spammers. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge, that template is not a replacement. From the template, I've always used the links "en" and "20" - and they will only turn up results if the http tag was used in the link (same as using Special:LinkSearch).  While both methods turn up where the links are currently in use, without the http link added to this page, it does not turn up prior reportings of the link.  By removing the http tags, the prior reports in the archives of this talk page are effectively invisible to those tools.  Or is there another way to use the template that I've missed? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * An example to illustrate the point:
 * From that template, I cannot see that the link was previously reported and the prior report is in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Dec 1. If the http tag had been on the entry, you would see that entry from the archives via either the template or the special page.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lustiger seth's removal of the http, is unessesary. The removals are under the presumption that having an existing hyperlink would trigger MediaWiki's software filters, however this is not the case for existing links, or cases where a link resides on a page prior to blacklisting. I recall this was an issue in the past, but MediaWiki's software was adjusted to fix this. Only new additions of a blacklisted URL triggers the spam filter (perhaps this is no longer the case?). I can't recall the links to where these previously discussed issues are, however there is not a need to edit others contributions.--Hu12 (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lustiger seth's removal of the http, is unessesary. The removals are under the presumption that having an existing hyperlink would trigger MediaWiki's software filters, however this is not the case for existing links, or cases where a link resides on a page prior to blacklisting. I recall this was an issue in the past, but MediaWiki's software was adjusted to fix this. Only new additions of a blacklisted URL triggers the spam filter (perhaps this is no longer the case?). I can't recall the links to where these previously discussed issues are, however there is not a need to edit others contributions.--Hu12 (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

You should not use links in titles of discussion thread, because you won't be able easily to place a link to a paragraph which consists of a blacklisted link (if the title of a thread is http://www.example.org and example.org will be blacklisted after that, it is forbidden to use the link Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam). I've had that problem when trying to log a blacklist addition iirc.

Apart from that: How do your archive bots work here? When they move a thread that has a blacklisted link inside, the bot has to cope with the spam filter, because the bot seems to add a forbidden link (to the archive). -- seth (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If this page were WP:SBL, then I would agree with you. But, as I mentioned above, only a fraction of the submittals here get blacklisted.  For the handful that do get blacklisted, it's a fairly minor thing to change the thread to remove the link.  The majority of entries here do not get blacklisted (they exist here primarilly for discussion and/or tracking purposes), there is no problem leaving them as links.  And leaving them as links gives the advantage of making it more visible that it has been previously reported should the link ever turn up again (ie: if it gets reported again, it will turn up in a linksearch as existing in the archives - a sign that it's a recurring issue that may require a submittal to WP:SBL).  I've found that the wiki's "Search" function isn't reliable for spotting those in the archives.
 * Because the majority of entries here are not blacklisted, the bot has no problem archiving the entries.
 * If you have a better tool for easily finding that a link has been reported once or more in the past (showing prior entries of the link in the archives), then this isn't an issue. Otherwise, removing the link makes it harder to spot if it has been a previously reported link that may pose an on-going/recurring problem.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi!
 * You can use the internal wiki search, e.g. search for "wallnia.com" prefix:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Spam. -- seth (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, "I've found that the wiki's "Search" function isn't reliable for spotting those in the archives."
 * For the best shot at turning up the results, you need to insert the "prefix" tag to the search - otherwise you get many false positives. To be blunt, that's a pain in the arse to need to type or paste in each time - to me, it's more of a hassle than the fairly rare need to remove the http tags from this page.
 * I suppose if the search were pre-formatted within the LinkSummary template to include the spam archive search, that would reduce my concerns as it's then one click and would eliminate the need to manually insert the needed search criteria. Otherwise, you're just trading one inconvenience for another. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll ask for that at Template talk:LinkSummary. -- seth (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * E.g. the Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/example.com does a wonderful trick in finding where the LinkSummary template is used to track a link ... It even works for non-existent COIBot reports (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/sararamirez.com. No need for working link here in my opinion, but try to make sure there is a linksummary template.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So, should that link Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/example.com be added to the linksummary template? Or better http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&ns4=1&ns5=1&search=%22example.com%22&fulltext=Advanced+search ? -- seth (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe both, they have overlap, but e.g. the LinkSummary template is also used on some other discussion boards, which are silly to include all in the other search. On the other hand, sometimes the LinkSummary template is not suitable (e.g. for youtube.com/somespecificmovie-spammers, the template only makes sense with domains ..).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I guess, we should continue the discussion about the links on template talk:LinkSummary again. I made a proposal there including both links. If those links are added to the template, there wouldn't be any further need to use "http:", right? -- seth (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree; with those changes, "http" would no longer be needed. I also agree that Template talk:LinkSummary would be the place to continue this discussion to finalise the change (I added a link to point towards the updated proposal you've added). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

LinkSummary change makes http use not needed
The LinkSummary changes (adding a section for "Discussions: tracked - advanced") seems to adequately address the concerns that I had when I started this discussion. Thanks seth and Dirk Beetstra for finding a workable solution.

So ... unless anyone else still has a concern, I don't think there remains a need to use the actual http links directly on this page any longer. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Is an editor allowed to use the Google cache to bypass the spam blacklist?
Hello, spam authorities! It has come to my attention at the 3RR noticeboard that a link to a blacklisted article, if it points into the Google cache copy of the article, will still work. Mediawiki does not prevent the addition of such a cache link to an article.

Before I exceed my mandate, I'd like to know if this is frankly against policy, something to be politely persuaded against, or just how it stands. Thanks for any advice, EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the Linking policy on Restrictions on linking, See #2. Adding a blacklisted link without being whitelisted first, is not permitted, without exception. By-passing our filters is never a sign of good faith, however it appears this is about an Associated Content links. These links (as stated by Stealthound in your link above), fail Wikipedias Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Associated Content articles are realy no different than linking to a blog or personal website, with the exception the authors are paid by how many page views (clicks) they get. The article in the link does not appear to be professionally written and doesn't seem to have any sources.--Hu12 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Run the Nation
spamming everything related to marathons (and The Weather Channel for some reason?) ccwaters (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

exclaim.ca

 * Articles
 * Articles

Exclaim!
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

splicetoday.com
Leave  Sleaves  20:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Account

pmgsports.com

 * Site


 * Account

Reported by Kelly  hi! 23:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

247rep.com

 * Site


 * Accounts

The owner of the site was originally adding basic ELs. When warned for spamming changed tactic to trying to add into article text as citation. Has been repeatedly adding this purely self refernced information for some time, Has been full explained on talk why it is not notable or appropriate to try and include it this way instead more than once. Editor now using multiple anon IPs to re-add the information without discussion. Mfield (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The fan of golphing player the Anthony Kim insist put in his fansite in external links despite one talk page warning and much edit summary warnings of User:Tewapak and me (example: WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Here is the contributions of the user "anthonykimfan" [][]. Would you please block Single Purpose Account of the AnthonyKimFan? Regards, I NO ENGLISH, MY DAUGHTER ENGLISH 20:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Warned user with -- Unpopular Opinion  ( talk ) 21:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)



Tracking added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

basicoptionstrading.com
Adsense pub-3692615223463091
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Kirchsw Scientific American
This user has been adding links like this to Scientfic American images such as this, which he admits to owning but are on sale for download at the linked page. Subjects are too numerous to list here. As I don't have the tools to reverse thism, can someone take a look? Thanks  Nelson50 T  12:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Tracking:



User has a strong preference for this link (86 additions of this link, one addition of one other link). The link has been used by some other accounts (6, 2 of which IPs quite close together, of the other 4 3 have used this link only once) as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Before I cut loose with Twinkle, do people concur that this is linkspam under WP:EL and WP:COI? Thanks  Nelson50 T  20:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Adsense Spammer pub-9248565517775527
Adsense pub-9248565517775527 removed weblinks. see. -- seth (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Spam links to Dan Schneider articles again
There was a problem a few months ago with a critic called Dan Schneider adding spam links to his own reviews at the bottom of countless film pages. This was resolved after considerable debate and countless accusations and counter accusations to aliases and vendettas etc and eventually his aliases were removed and the problem solved- there was also a problem with him stretching his own wikipedia article to ridiculous lengths but this was eventually, again after considerable debate, resolved after about 8/10 of the article was removed and the remainder placed under protection. The pages I have removed the new links from include:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyricon_(film) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenzy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliverance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_wrath http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wages_of_Fear http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aguirre,_the_Wrath_of_God http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bicycle_Thieves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_1/2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Double_Life_of_Veronique

But there's bound to be countless more, including many that already had the links taken from by myself and others a few months ago. Some details of what happened last time are on my talk page. He's very prolific and due to upcoming exams and other commitments I cannot do much myself and would like the Admin to get involved again if possible. Many of the links appear to be to a site called www.noripcord.com and www.altfg.com

Thanks, and sorry if this is in the wrong section.

StevenEdmondson (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks ugly, if these first couple of articles I looked at are any indication of what's going on:
 * Deliverance - added by new editor, SPA,
 * The Double Life of Véronique - added by new editor, SPA,
 * If the other articles are like this, a sockpuppet report should be started with a checkuser request. What accounts added the links the previously time? --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't remember, although he had well over 50 aliases that were found I think. StevenEdmondson (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't remember, although he had well over 50 aliases that were found I think. StevenEdmondson (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Cleaning up this could also be a mess.A LinkSerch for altfg.com shows 211 results out of which 170 are blog entries that contain primarily reviews but also interviews etc. Further we'd have to check for authors of individual links if there is a possibility other authors are notable. Leave  Sleaves  18:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If last time is any indication all authors are highly likely to be Dan S StevenEdmondson (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I checked for that and there are others too. Leave  Sleaves  18:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh right, sorry. Well I guess that complicates things. StevenEdmondson (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment on all this at the bottom of this discussion.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Listings

 * Listing the articles:
 * 1) Aguirre,_the_Wrath_of_God by Puppette
 * 2) Aparajito by Gumul
 * 3) Autumn Sonata by Mansforddell and 4.230.147.236
 * 4) Blowup by 4.231.131.170
 * 5) Breathless (1960 film) by Veritasmaximal
 * 6) Day_of_wrath by Krebzambia
 * 7) Deliverance by Theyarewack
 * 8) Dragon Hunters (film) by 75.146.56.246
 * 9) Early Summer ‎by Uprightgreen
 * 10) Ellen Gilchrist by 67.67.220.167 and SouthernLights
 * 11) Fitzcarraldo by Orangenj and 67.67.196.87
 * 12) Floating Weeds by 67.67.220.167 and 4.230.147.155
 * 13) Freaks  ‎by Mullerjena and Ambergowster
 * 14) Frenzy by Version100
 * 15) Klaus Kinski  ‎by 4.231.132.20
 * 16) Knife in the Water (film) by Archeshipley and Takashbillisk
 * 17) Lacombe_Lucien by Luigibob and Vandenflexor Review of Criterion DVD of Lacombe, Lucien
 * 18) Life of Pi by Pheon (twice)
 * 19) Little Dieter Needs to Fly by Orangenj and Luckistip
 * 20) Major Dundee by Hearinglosslip and Amphidund and Filialprojector
 * 21) Mr. Arkadin by Archeshipley and Ambersoniata and 4.231.130.110
 * 22) My Best Fiend by 67.67.220.167 and 4.231.132.20
 * 23) Ordet by Theocredit
 * 24) Regeneration (1997 film) by Rojaslaw and Mckinnigill
 * 25) The Rules of the Game by 68.93.132.203
 * 26) Satyricon_(film) by Rusinga
 * 27) Straw Dogs by 67.67.196.87 and Radoslav10 and Bennyroyal and 67.234.188.136
 * 28) Taste of Cherry by Umdjden and Takashbillisk and Rebeccamack
 * 29) The_Bicycle_Thieves by Tubingstutt
 * 30) The Conversation by Bawa007and Veritasmaximal
 * 31) The_Double_Life_of_Veronique by Superemoan
 * 32) The Killing of a Chinese Bookie by Bawa007
 * 33) The Searchers (film) by Belamorreia and Stillstudying and 4.230.147.236
 * 34) Three Colors: Blue by Panayibrit and Shelfgoddess and 4.231.131.16
 * 35) Three Colors: Red by 99.179.98.2 and Shelfgoddess and 4.231.131.16
 * 36) Three Colors: White by 99.179.98.2 and Shelfgoddess and 4.231.131.16
 * 37) Umberto D. by Pattonesk and Verdipun and 4.231.133.199
 * 38) Uzak by Umdjden and 4.230.147.236
 * 39) Wages_of_Fear by Amazile
 * 40) War-Gods of the Deep by Bennyroyal and Nugluts and Mathemaxi
 * 41) Werner Herzog ‎by 4.231.132.20
 * 42) Winter Light ‎by Uprightgreen and Vitobruno and Crayonedcat and 4.230.147.105
 * 43) 20 Million Miles to Earth by Aerogelo and Filialprojector
 * 44) 8_1/2 by Babuul00 and 68.93.132.113
 * 45) Chester Himes by 4.230.147.236


 * 1) Solaris (1972 film)
 * 2) Bicycle Thieves
 * 3) Sansho the Bailiff
 * 4) Robot Monster
 * 5) Eternity and a Day
 * 6) Landscape in the Mist
 * 7) Ulysses' Gaze
 * 8) Through a Glass Darkly (film)
 * 9) Crime and Punishment
 * 10) Missing (film)


 * Some data (from top 10s):


 * noripcord.com


 * Users who added no other links than this link:




 * altfg.com


 * Users who added no other links than this link:




 * blogcritics.com


 * Users who added no other links than this link:


 * User:Dorksandlosers - seems unrelated.


 * Users who only added more than one of the above mentioned links:


 * noripcord.com and altfg.com

The two mentioned 69.-IPs are in the range of Bell Canada (69.156.0.0/14), the other two (68. and 12.) are in America (the latter in a hotel?). All links are also used by editors who seem to have a wide variety of links (though the mentioned accounts are high in the top 10 of users ..). LinkReports are on the way, which may show some more. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * thesimon.com


 * obsessedwithfilm.com


 * hackwriters.com


 * monstersandcritics.com


 * unlikelystories.org

Further discussion

 * Let's be careful here. The link in Blowup was added a very long time ago, probably in good faith, was removed during the last cleanup of these links, but was immediately restored in good faith by . --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. I thought last time this happened it was established that links to DS's reviews were spam links? StevenEdmondson (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean that some weren't restored in good faith by other editors. --Ronz (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored referenced information from Schneider's interviews where it was appropriate. However, I took care not to insert any links which might be considered spam.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

User Aerogelo added one of his reviews in blogcritics.org to 20 Million Miles to Earth, which I listed above. --Ronz (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At this point, I think the remaining noripcord.com links are to music reviews.
 * There is a lot of altfg.com spamming that is probably unrelated to Schneider's reviews.
 * I haven't looked at blogcritics.org yet. --Ronz (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)



I was just made aware of this discussion. The spam issue with Schneider involved people and sock puppets on both sides of the issue--i.e., both pro and con Schneider. After all this came up the last time, I personally contacted Schneider and he told me that he is not spamming Wikipedia. He said there are a number of people online who harass him online and he suspects this might be another case of this (i.e., to get his site blacklisted by Wikipedia).

Feel free to remove any spam links. However, the spam issue is unrelated to using Dan Schneider's interview with prominent people as a source in certain articles (such as Daniel Wallace (author)). His interviews provide quality, reliable information from a website which has gained a good deal of press coverage for its criticism (including in the NY Times). I have no tolerance for people spamming Wikipedia, but spamming a site doesn't make that site unreliable as a source of information. When people remove the spam links, take care not to remove referenced information on these subjects.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I should note that any of the referenced info from Schneider's interviews which I used in articles here did not include the link to his site, since that would have been considered spam. However, I disagree with designating his site as a spam site. As I mentioned above, I'm not convinced Schneider was the one spamming Wikipedia.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen no evidence this is actually Schneider, so I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt. I've renamed the discussion header with this in mind. --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going through the links to altfg.com now and I'm not liking what I'm seeing. I'll report back finish the set. Themfromspace (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment below. This is a legit film review site.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know this isn't assuming good faith, so if possible consider this as off-the-record (so to speak) as possible, but personally I'm 100% sure that the individual with the SPA adding the spam links is Schneider. It's clear from his own articles that he has a phenomenally high opinion of himself "The difference is I know the difference between like and dislike and good and bad. That's why I'm a great critic, and Rivette shd stick to a medium he knows, and leave the writing for the pros." and " No one, online or off, knows the mechanics and application or words better than I do" which would clearly in his eyes justify the barrage of linking. Furthermore, and crucially, he's got an incredibly distinct writing style, and the business last time with the user Cop666 was either him, or a frankly brilliant and sustained parody.

Also, I've just been notified that in the comments on a NoRipCord review here: http://www.noripcord.com/reviews/film/blow-up#comment-852 he accuses an Anonymous user of being me, or at least my wikipedia username. It's not me, however his assuming it is me, and knowledge of who I am, surely confirms that he is involved here, denial or not. StevenEdmondson (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"However, the spam issue is unrelated to using Dan Schneider's interview with prominent people as a source in certain articles (such as Daniel Wallace (author)). His interviews provide quality, reliable information from a website which has gained a good deal of press coverage for its criticism (including in the NY Times). I have no tolerance for people spamming Wikipedia, but spamming a site doesn't make that site unreliable as a source of information. When people remove the spam links, take care not to remove referenced information on these subjects.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)"
 * Hmm... just checked out the New York Times mention. It's a couple of sentences long and ridiculing him. I've had more than that written about me in a national Newspaper. It doesn't mean that I'm notable enough to warrant a wikipedia page or links everywhere. StevenEdmondson (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assessment, but as I mentioned below, I think the User:XLinkBot solution will satisfy everyone in this discussion. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For a relevant insight into Dan's views of spam you might want to read the piece he wrote at www dot cosmoetica.com/B68-DES33.htm (blacklisted). Quite the class act. Themfromspace (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. This is essentially irrelevant now a conclusion has been reached, but surely that proves beyond any doubt that he's behind it? ie, He'll deny the spamming (as he did), on the basis that are far as he's concerned spam isn't spam if it lacks "commercial intent", as his did. He admits in it spamming essentially, but excuses it by trying to redefine spam. StevenEdmondson (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Previous problems

 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive470 is a discussion of the previous time this occurred. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive166 --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Involved users that were not blocked:
 * Mitziohara
 * Nightnipper
 * Vester99


 * Users listed in AN report:

Further action - checkuser?
I think we have enough evidence for a checkuser request. Basically, we have a large number of new editors that obviously know their way around Wikipedia that are adding or restoring links to Schneider's reviews, all within the last month. --Ronz (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See my comment above.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, CheckUser. I am sure he's evading at leats one block, and this is blatant vanity spamming. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, do a checkuser.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A checkuser on what? There's easily over a dozen accounts created by this guy, most of them being SPAs who reverted the previous removal of the links as "vandalism".  I don't think this will stop the accounts from being created again, considering how many IPs have been plugging his material as well. Themfromspace (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A checkuser on the obvious socks will also flush out sleepers. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't call all Schneider reviews spam
I went though the problem articles above and what people are calling spam links come from a number of valid film review sites like No Rip Cord and The Alternate Film Review site. Unless people are willing to label all of these sites as spam sites, I don't think we should remove all these film links. If one user is spamming the links, yes, remove those links. But to issue a blanket call that any link to a Schneider film review is therefore spam is faulty reasoning. Schneider is prominent enough to publish his reviews in a number of different places. If legitimate Wikipedia editors make good faith edits adding links to, or information from, these reviews, they should not be removed. This means we should avoid blanket removal of all these links.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * After all I've looked at, I'm tending to agree. From this point, I'm just going to list articles and editors unless there's obvious spamming that does not assume sock puppetry. A checkuser should clear up the sockpuppet spam. --Ronz (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * They are not so much spam as vanispamcruftisement. Schneider seems to have a very high opinion of his own work, and also appears to be very determined to be namechecked in as many places as possible.  Roger Ebert he most definitely is not. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Solution?
As this is used in a probably inappropriate way by new and IP users, would it be a solution to add the three domains to User:XLinkBot? In that way established users can use the link, but new users are cautioned early, and we may catch new users (socks) who push this link too much early on. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That would make sense- Would negate the problem of SPA only plugging the site without blocking them completely, or in the case that the article really has been inserted in good faith. StevenEdmondson (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I also really like this solution and think it would be a win-win for everyone b/c we'd stop the spam but legit editors could still use these websites and Schneider's reviews on Wikipedia. So to be clear, all of these film review sites, along with Schneider's Cosmoetica site, would be added to User:XLinkBot. Is everyone okay with this?


 * BTW, to show how nasty both sides of the Schneider debate can get, this editor left a racial slur and a physical threat on my talk page for "supporting Schneider" (or so the editor thought) on this issue. I removed the threat and blocked the editor.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with all above. Sounds like the a good plan for keeping the bad out and letting the good in. Themfromspace (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like we have consensus here. I just requested on the XLinkBot request page that blogcritics.org, altfg.com, cosmoetica.com, and noripcord.com be added to XLinkBot. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What do we do with the links already added that it has been determined were added by SPAs? Some initially removed, either by myself or others have already been readded. If the consensus is keep, I'm happy to keep.StevenEdmondson (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:RBI. Please remove them and, if you think they are genuinely more authoritative than other reviews on the article, re-add them yourself.  I'd prefer to see content from more widely-known critics myself. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, do not remove them. I reverted those edits because when I went through the deleted links I was not convinced they were by SPAs and felt they did add to the articles. My preference in all this is to err on the side of caution with regard to not removing good faith edits by editors. Now that we have instituted this solution--all those sites have now been added to XLinkBot, BTW--SPAs will not be able to add spam from these sites. But as I said earlier, merely deleting a link to an article by Schneider because you label it spam is wrong. Spam results from the actions of a spammer, not merely because people don't like Schneider or there have been SPAs both supporting and opposing him here on Wikipedia.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If we're still concerned about the links, then we should go through with the checkuser, because it's very likely that sockpuppetry is once again being used to spam links. --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should have added that we shouldn't remove them unless checkuser tells us which are the SPAs. I expanded on this comment below.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

So do I remove them or not? They clearly were not good faith edits and were clearly added by SPA. Furthermore, how do they add to the article? StevenEdmondson (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned earlier, above, I think it best to only remove the links where they were clearly spammed. The rest should wait until a checkuser determines what else was spammed through sockpuppetry. --Ronz (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not remove them unless we get a checkuser stating which were the spam links. We do not tolerate SPAs spamming Wikipedia. However, these are not all clearly SPAs. For example, in the article Aguirre, the Wrath of God, it was claimed at the start of this discussion that User:Puppette was a SPA for adding a spam link. However, if you look at the edits Puppette did here, you will see that the editor made a number of very constructive edits to the article, so I'm not convinced that was a case of a SPA spamming Wikipedia. I agree there was likely some SPA activity around the Schneider links. However, separating the SPA additions from the good-faith additions is almost impossible without a checkuser.


 * Just FYI, this Schneider gets a ton of traffic through his website and also publishes his reviews in a number of other places. Since he likely has a lot of readers, editors will naturally add his reviews to articles here. And the great news is that we now have XLinkBot in place to keep SPAs from spamming these links while also allowing established editors to add them if they bring value to the articles. --SouthernNights (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Since he likely has a lot of readers, editors will naturally add his reviews to articles here". But in exactly the same way other editors did a few months ago? And when these editors write on a talk page (see Cop66, who brazenly attacked me and other editors, and also had a SPA (called Ovenknob?) to attack himself to discredit others), I assume it's just coincidence that they somehow manage to adopt all Dan's mannerisms, amounting to a pitch perfect impersonation? It's a coincidence than Dan has admitted spamming numerous places, and defended his right to on a point of artistic principle? StevenEdmondson (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, I know there has been SPA hijinks at work here on both sides of this issue, and that they existed in the earlier case too. But the problem is separating the SPAs from the legit edits. And in this case the evidence is not clear. --SouthernNights (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Steven: If it will make you happy, remove all the links. I'm tired of arguing. I think this is a mistake and will undo a number of good faith edits, along with removing the edits of SPAs. However, do you also agree that with XLinkBot in place, from this point on any editors adding either this info or these links are not SPAs? Also understand that being a SPA cuts both way. While I see you've made a number of very good edits to Wikipedia, it is troubling that more than half your total number of edits have been focused around this Schneider issue. I strongly suggest you don't obsess on all this. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Since the attacks with Cop666 last time this perhaps my neutrality has been compromised. I still think the links should go, but I'd rather wait for a clearer consensus to be reached, furthermore I should probably step back from this, so perhaps if and when the links are removed it should be by someone other than myself. Also, regarding over half my edits relating to Schneider, that may well be true and it's certainly unfortunate, however if anything I think it's reflective of the pervasiveness of the links throughout a vast number of wikipedia articles. Also, if anything I've said relating to the links and SPAs have come across as attacks on yourself or aggressive or petulant then I apologise profusely and can assure you that it was not my intention. StevenEdmondson (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. And I apologize if I was too confrontational on this. Tell you what--once we get a checkuser on those accounts listed above, I'll personally remove any of the links that were added by SPAs. And, as I mentioned, with the bot this shouldn't be an issue from now on. I hope you continue to enjoy working on Wikipedia. If you ever have any issues that I can help you with, just drop a line. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

pennystockuniversity.com
Adsense pub-pub-8734055413785270 Adsense pub-0337402901833400
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

Persistant spamming Bl'd--Hu12 (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

soundproofmagazine.com

 * Links


 * Accounts

The only additions of these external links appear to be by WP:SPA accounts. Note: there are some instances of the link used as a reference, and those appear to be added by multiple editors ... but all additions to the EL section appear to be linkspam. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * More--Hu12 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note:, who claims to be a co-owner of the site, has acknowledged a COI in adding the links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, it appears that, who was previously blocked for linkspam related to this site, restarted adding the links on Jan 11th. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Any more I'd suggest deffering this to the blacklist, seems there is a serious issue with spam and COI. WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/soundproofmagazine.com thanks--Hu12 (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

everyyachtcharter.com

 * Links


 * Accounts

Blatant self-promotion. Username itself also appears to be a violation of WP:USERNAME as it's self-promotional. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

mappery.com

 * Links


 * Accounts

Multiple WP:SPA accounts whose sole activity is to add links to a map directory site onto articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See also a prior report of these links: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Dec 2 --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aditional accounts  Yup, I've BL'd this ✅. Thanks barek--Hu12 (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

vipmajestic.com

 * Links


 * Accounts

Inserting advert with spam links to existing article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Username blocked.--Hu12 (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

cvlavoro.com
Adsense pub-9019999351528509


 * Links


 * Accounts
 * spamming the link since 3 Sep 08, to multiple articles, multiple times
 * sole contribution to wikipedia is spaming the link once to Résumé
 * sole contributions to wikipedia is spaming the link twice to Cover letter
 * Appears to be the same editor. While these editors are presenting the link as if the site primarily has cover letter examples, it's actually a site advertising translation services for resumes, cover letters, etc. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Adsense forum Spammer
Adsense pub-0702234809504043
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

evp.edu.py

 * Links


 * Accounts

The additions were made in August. Can someone remove the useless links? Renata (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

jimsj.com
Adsense pub-2792661401362919


 * Links

--Ronz (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts

66.177.169.5
--Has added spam links to Serial killers, Ink. to various articles about serial killers. Continues after fourth level warning. --Call me Bubba (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the reverts you've made, is this the user you meant?
 * If so, here's the related link summary:
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

spammer ip

 * After 4 warnings IP continues to delete material that he/she doesn't like and then add material that is spam - her personal essay, opinions and contains names etc. multiple violations including 3RRs...Modernist (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This page is for reporting the spamming of links to websites, not for edit wars over content. This user has already been warned for WP:3RR; that's all that needs to be done, here. --McGeddon (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And this-?

Christofides, Sheila (2004), (posted by Dr Sheila Christofides 19.01.09 – no permissions required for reproduction and dissemination), The Intransigent Critic: Reconsidering the reasons for Clement Greenberg’s formalist stance from the early 1930s to the early 1970s. © Sheila Christofides ... http://www.library.unsw.edu.au/~thesis/adt-NUN/uploads/approved/adt-NUN20050503.092711/public/01front.pdf

Seems like spam to me....Modernist (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

recessionwatch.net

 * Links


 * Accounts

News portal websites being linkspammed by WP:SPA IP accounts. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

webs.com

 * Links

Just looking for opinions on these. There are over 500 links on Wikipedia to this domain - many (if not most/all) of which appear to fail both the reliable sources and external link requirements. The main site bills it as a place to "create your own website for free". As a result, a large amount of self published and non-notable content appears to be in these links.

So the question is if this site should be submitted to WP:SBL, or even to meta - whitelisting any that should happen to be appropriate to use as a WP:RS or WP:EL ... or am I over reacting here? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Barek, I agree. I think we should be looking at WP:SBL. Although some links may be fair game, it's more than likely people will see this as a way to create sources to verify whatever they like. I certainly don't think you could cast the vast majority - if any - of those sites as reliable sources. I've also seen a few that seem to be fansites wanting traffic and attention. Greggers (t &bull; c) 17:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've submitted this to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

manuelmora.es

 * Links


 * Accounts

Persistent spammer on rotating IPs, adding a link to his personal site over and over. - MrOllie (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cross Wiki Spamming
 * es:Special:Contributions/MMiX
 * --Hu12 (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

closingcostfax.com

 * Links


 * Accounts

Commercial linkspam added to multiple articles by WP:SPA IP accounts. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

onlinemaps.co.cc
Adsense pub-5200318038710452
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

mynicetie.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

anorexiapedia.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

UnRated Magazine

 * [Adsense pub-3715303385424848]
 * Articles
 * [Adsense pub-3715303385424848]
 * Articles

UnRated Magazine
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Scott Bowler SEO Spamming on Wikipedia

 * related Sites hosted on the Guavastudios server: 77.72.200.40
 * [Scottbowler]
 * [Guavastudios]
 * [Guavastudios]
 * [Globalsearchlight]
 * [Hrubinlasereye]


 * Also Spammed
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Another added today.--Hu12 (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Another added today.--Hu12 (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Men's Studies Press SEO on Wikipedia
http://spam.mensstudies.info
 * Articles
 * Articles
 * Articles

Men's Studies Press Culture, Society and Masculinities Fathering (journal)
 * Accounts

D.F.Janssen Compiler/Editor: Diederik F. Janssen  Janssen, Diederik  --Hu12 (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Development and Cooperation Agency spam

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

kingdomunderfire.wikia.com

 * Links


 * Accounts

A non-notable game fansite wiki being repeatedly added to multiple articles by an IP editor. Appears to be an attempt to promote the wiki (note: the "Special:Statistics" page on the wiki shows 6 registered users, 267 total pages, 19 of which are classified as legitimate content pages). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

woodwardcruisecountdown.com

 * Links


 * Accounts

A slow-motion edit war to add this link to the Woodward Dream Cruise article over the past year. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Previous report of the link being added: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Aug 1 --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

hamzajennings.com blog

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

Obvious COI--Hu12 (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

goldtraderasia.com

 * Articles
 * Articles

Physical Gold vs. Dollars Invest In Physical Gold
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Spamming of GuideStar UK

 * http://spam.guidestar.org.uk
 * Articles
 * Articles

GuideStar UK
 * Accounts

charity spamming, with a dash of WP:SOCK--Hu12 (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All blocked, except the IP. I found . What do you think? -- Kanonkas :  Talk 19:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Kanonkas. Nice work catching the other sock account. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All ✅. Good work, Hu12. -- Kanonkas :  Talk 07:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Polyview Media Ltd

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Avera Solutions Limited spam

 * Articles
 * Articles
 * Articles
 * Articles
 * Articles
 * Articles

Avera Solutions Limited Radiotronics DJ Price Check
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Spectre Publishing LLC
spectrepublishing.com
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC) ...if you need any information about the investigation, feel free to email me at publisher@spectrepublishing.com.
 * Another added related
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Spectre7277 --Hu12 (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Spectre7277 --Hu12 (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fazlani and ringtones spam
Spam-only account spamming for his Nokia-ringtones page (e.g.: ) --Damiens .rf 11:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Think I got them all. Those Nokia articles sure have a lot of external links. -- Kanonkas :  Talk 12:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * [Adsense pub-9681743841660877]
 * [Adsense pub-1455588878141083]
 * --Hu12 (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

earth-energy4home.tk

 * Links


 * Related links


 * Accounts


 * Article

Linkspam added repeatedly over the past two months. Note, all of the above links are for the same business operation. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the above sites appear to redirect the user to the website:
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * After digging further, found that these are actually referals that redirect via clickbank.net, which is already blacklisted at Meta - so I've submitted these to meta:Talk:Spam blacklist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * After digging further, found that these are actually referals that redirect via clickbank.net, which is already blacklisted at Meta - so I've submitted these to meta:Talk:Spam blacklist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

mr-seo.com
All contributions from the following editors and IP consist of adding this link to SEO related articles.


 * Editors


 * IP

--Bonadea (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted. No reason for this link anywhere on wikipedia.--Hu12 (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

SeaMo

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Adsense spammer pub-2579312296479477
Adsense pub-2579312296479477
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

--Hu12 (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

RenaultForums.co.uk
Adsense pub-1276883980827047
 * Using referrerid=9788
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

comze.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

medfinds.com
Adsense pub-6409700201806647
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Kinginthecorner and Uniblue Spam
Our good old Uniblue employee is still at it in advertising rogue software. Requesting actions on this. Thanks. Akira T. 10:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * User


 * Links


 * Uniblue Systems Limited
 * Articles

Uniblue Systems Registry Booster Registry booster redirect page RegistryBooster redirect page
 * --Hu12 (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

American health care lobby related spam


This user appears to be adding external links to American care health lobby groups in every general health care article, including in many articles that have nothing to do with American health care politics. I have repeatedly told the user that there is a separate article for American health care lobby groups (List of healthcare reform advocacy groups in the United States, some might suit Healthcare reform in the United States too), but this user does not seem to be listening. I tried to remove some of these linkfarms and left templates expressing the problems, but he removed both repeatedly. He has described other users with incivil language such as "health care company troll".

Furthermore, this user has at least three times blanked talk pages despite warnings that Wikipedia policies describe it as a form of vandalism .LincolnSt (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a pathetic joke. At least two other long term editors have had problems with the above editor. This editor has engaged in disruptive editing, deleting content from many health care pages with no consensus, as his edit history will indicate. The only "blanking" of pages that I have done has been on my own talk page, which is allowed. And I do believe there exists a COI with this user concerning the health insurance industry. And it wasn't "users" I described as a "health care company troll" in my edit summary concerning his continued spam of my talk page, it was only him. --Cosmic Cowboy (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Then why don't you stop spamming links to health care lobby groups and engaging in such incivility? You have been referred to WP:LINKSTOAVOID multiple times: "4.Links mainly intended to promote a website. ... 13.Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject." Red Cross or World Health Organization would be appropriate links for Healthcare, but political lobby groups in the United States ARE NOT.LincolnSt (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This user is still avoiding the question regarding linkfarming in healthcare related articles. In all talk pages (his own talk pages he blanks), his defense always seems to conclude in personal attacks on other editors.LincolnSt (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Any expert opinion regarding advertising American political websites (there are other countries too) in directly unrelated articles such as Healthcare or National health insurance? LincolnSt (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to come to the defense of User:Cosmic Cowboy. LincolnSt has been a very disruptive editor over these past few days, busily merging pages and blanking sections without any prior warning or discussion on the talk page, Furthermore the user has made threats not only to Cosmic but also to me warning of dire consequences if we do not stop trying to restrain him/her in his/her endeavours. I tend to agree with Cosmic that the actions of this editor are biased. It fits into a pattern that I have observed every year a about this time and it does seem to be motivated by a certain view within the health care debate within the U.S. As to the more substantial and relevant issue of spam linking I would say that, as an editor of some long standing to medicine related WP pages, that we see spammin in many different guises. Would a link to a web site that publishes only one side of the argument be spam linking? Yes it is, but then if we disallow that on one side we have to disallow links that show the other side. If we could not link to such sites, then arguments that heard by lobyyists on one side or the other would not be heard and we could not repeat them in WP without giving the link as verifiablity. So we have to allow links that reflect BOTH sides of the story when contentious items arise but we must show balance. LincolnSt has been just as biased in removing only links which he perceives are not favorable to his/her particular view.  I would strongly argue therefore that LincolnSt's actions here are very much a matter of the pot calling the kettle black.   --Hauskalainen (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the another of the two editors who have waged some kind of campaign on people who have dared to leave "citation needed" templates. Along other things, this user has argued that Health care in the United Kingdom does not "suit" for information about the UK health care system, while wanting to copy paste it to every other health care article (I found 5+ copies of the same content). That said, this user is not engaged in advertising unrelated links.LincolnSt (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are twisting things enormously! I said your "cut and paste job" did not suit the Health care in the United Kingdom article. If you were truly interested in improving the Healthcare in the United Kingdom article you would have spent the necessary time enuring that the text did not replicate what is already there and that information was placed in the appropriate section. Instead you plonked it in there as a single block. So no, your main aim was simply this. To get this information out of the article from where you cut. Presumably because you don't want the content therein to be seen by those people reading the article socialized medicine, which was where you cut it from. The text you cut is neat summary data about the archetypal socialized health care system, the NHS, and thus highly relevent to the socialized health care article. --Hauskalainen (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What comes to this user's argument, nobody has opposed inserting whatever political links to Health care reform in the United States. But keep American politics in American articles, Healthcare or National Health Insurance in general is not related to politics in Connecticut.12:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)I, as a total outsider, am having a look at some of these. Some analysis while I go:
 * I do NOT believe Cosmic Cowboy is spamming, however some of the pages edited (and where in some cases Cosmic Cowboy added links):
 * Health_care_in_the_United_States contains a linkfarm, that one needs trimming, drastically, see the intro of WP:EL and WP:NOT / WP:NOT. Examples of links failing WP:ELNO:
 * rebublicansforsinglepayer.com. Voting page, certainly not directly linked to the subject
 * pdamerica.org. Voting page, certainly not directly linked to the subject
 * guaranteedhealthcare.org. A blog, telling about issues, etc.  That one should go, suitable on a page about this blog, not here (not directlyy linked)
 * Some of the others make very good references (see intro of WP:EL) or as further reading.
 * Health care, short list of links, however:
 * healthcare-now.org is not appropriate, health care is about health care, not about the problems of health care in America only. Not directly linked
 * Again some links which are better used as references (see intro of WP:EL).
 * Healthcare reform, not too long, same analyses as Health care, note: Page covers Netherlands, Russia, Taiwan, United Kingdom, United States, Elsewhere .. however, links seem America centered.
 * Single-payer health care, quite a list:
 * singlepayercentral.com. America centered, page linked does not tell too much, not directly linked.
 * pnhp.org. America centered, mission statement, not directly linked to the information in the page
 * ncpa.org. America centered, 'policy analysis' (!!), not even directly about healthcare.
 * All in all I would suggest that trimming or rewriting of these external links sections is in order. This is the English language wikipedia, not the American wikipedia.  Quite some of the links suffer from '... but Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic...', and WP:SPAMHOLE.  Maybe taking most of them down (an article does not need an external links section!!), moving the external links which are published by official sources (those that are a reliable source) into a 'further reading section', and moving ALL others to the respective talkpages, and having a discussion there seems in place.  As a side note, the same can be done for some of the see-also sections in these documents.  Some of the organisations linked in the external links are also in the see also, and also there one can ask if they are necessery, and if, when the link in the see-also is necessery, then the external link is totally superfluous.  Note that some of the wiki links in the see also sections can be moved into the text of country specific sections, and linked there.  I hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Articles Healthcare-now Healthcare-NOW!
 * Sock Accounts   --Hu12 (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hu12, if you had taken the time to look at my user page you would have read the following: "Formerly Prowler08. I got logged out and could not remember or retrieve my password." As for editor Blumuffph11, it is not I. --Cosmic Cowboy (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are some rules you seem to be ignoring:
 * SPAM
 * External link spamming
 * External links policy
 * Links normally to be avoided
 * Advertising and conflicts of interest
 * Conflict of interest
 * Editors who have a conflict of interest
 * Accounts used for promotion
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Wikipedia is not a directory
 * Wikipedia is not a repository for links
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising
 * SOCK
 * Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts
 * 'Role' accounts
 * BLOCK
 * Persistent spamming
 * Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

jockbio.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

ccwaters (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Added to COIBot--Hu12 (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Spamming "top" Canada employers
Spamming lists of winners of Canada's Top 100 Employers awards in every region:

I'm sure there are more. Flowanda | Talk 07:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

COIBot reports on the way. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Gavin MacDougall is spamming all "right to die"/euthanasia pages with a link to a novel


The novel does not appear notable, and the link is to a site that sells it. Xasodfuih (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also added davidrross.org and johncairney.com (each one time). luath.co.uk was also added by User:LuathPress.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Added UserSummary link for reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Added UserSummary link for reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Banja Luka
keeps inserting this website into the article on Banja Luka. He has received four spam warnings on his talkpage this month. Please help. Aramgar (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Link: Aramgar (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He's targeted other project as well, so I added it to the global blacklist. --Erwin(85) 21:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

tripcart.com

 * User


 * Links

Katr67 (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The IP might be connected to this company: http://www.ricercar.com/ Katr67 (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * More users:
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

EBooks Europe links

 * Domains spammed:
 * http://www.bakuganbatttlearena.info
 * http://www.xmaselmolive.info
 * http://www.buymeakindle.info
 * http://www.buymeakindle.info
 * http://www.buymeakindle.info


 * Related domains:
 * http://37ish.com
 * http://6020fd.info
 * http://a1datingnews.com
 * http://adoptinganinfant.com
 * http://aidtohearing.com
 * http://all-about-diseases.com
 * http://alldogsleadtobone.com
 * http://automatic-responders.co.uk
 * http://autos-inclusive.com
 * http://bakenmake.com
 * http://braceyourknee.com
 * http://breezefilter.com
 * http://buymeawii.info
 * http://camera-spies.com
 * http://canon-rebel.com
 * http://canon-vixia-h.com
 * http://chest-health-advice.com
 * http://collectastamp.com
 * http://creatingwills.com
 * http://dream-revealer.com
 * http://ebooks-europe.com
 * http://fightbackpanic.com
 * http://find-and-seek.com
 * http://forexsitereview.com
 * http://fx-eyes.com
 * http://guitarnstuff.com
 * http://gunnrod.com
 * http://home-fitness-online.com
 * http://insurance-a-z.com
 * http://kitchen-transformer.com
 * http://learntoday-jobtomorrow.com
 * http://legodwarvesmine.info
 * http://legostarwars6210.com
 * http://linkbackseo.com
 * http://lounge-cinema.com
 * http://magical-marketing.biz
 * http://morediabetes.com
 * http://motivation-articles.com
 * http://namerazor.co.uk
 * http://natural-body-and-mind.com
 * http://niche-newsreels.com
 * http://nikon-d90-dx.com
 * http://nomoreradar.com
 * http://nowweregone.com
 * http://onlinemusicreport.com
 * http://optic-surgery.com
 * http://panasonic-dmc.com
 * http://paternitynow.com
 * http://personal-health-advice.com
 * http://pocket-pda.com
 * http://power4singlemoms.com
 * http://profit-toolbox.com
 * http://profit-weaver.com
 * http://pureflipvideo.com
 * http://scheela-cory.com
 * http://seasontobejolly.com
 * http://seniorsruleok.com
 * http://spyware-articles.com
 * http://steps-to-starting-a-small-business.biz
 * http://sunlikeithot.com
 * http://taylormade-putter.com
 * http://teaching-your-kids.com
 * http://thestresstalk.com
 * http://travelntreks.com
 * http://ukdiytools.com
 * http://voiceoverip-articles.com
 * http://vtechkiddiezoom.info
 * http://washburnhannahmontana.info
 * http://watchbike.com
 * http://weightkicker.com
 * http://whatcarpetcleaning.com
 * http://whatsauna.com
 * http://which-price.com
 * http://which-review.com
 * http://xmastoppicks.com
 * http://motivation-articles.com
 * http://namerazor.co.uk
 * http://natural-body-and-mind.com
 * http://niche-newsreels.com
 * http://nikon-d90-dx.com
 * http://nomoreradar.com
 * http://nowweregone.com
 * http://onlinemusicreport.com
 * http://optic-surgery.com
 * http://panasonic-dmc.com
 * http://paternitynow.com
 * http://personal-health-advice.com
 * http://pocket-pda.com
 * http://power4singlemoms.com
 * http://profit-toolbox.com
 * http://profit-weaver.com
 * http://pureflipvideo.com
 * http://scheela-cory.com
 * http://seasontobejolly.com
 * http://seniorsruleok.com
 * http://spyware-articles.com
 * http://steps-to-starting-a-small-business.biz
 * http://sunlikeithot.com
 * http://taylormade-putter.com
 * http://teaching-your-kids.com
 * http://thestresstalk.com
 * http://travelntreks.com
 * http://ukdiytools.com
 * http://voiceoverip-articles.com
 * http://vtechkiddiezoom.info
 * http://washburnhannahmontana.info
 * http://watchbike.com
 * http://weightkicker.com
 * http://whatcarpetcleaning.com
 * http://whatsauna.com
 * http://which-price.com
 * http://which-review.com
 * http://xmastoppicks.com
 * http://seniorsruleok.com
 * http://spyware-articles.com
 * http://steps-to-starting-a-small-business.biz
 * http://sunlikeithot.com
 * http://taylormade-putter.com
 * http://teaching-your-kids.com
 * http://thestresstalk.com
 * http://travelntreks.com
 * http://ukdiytools.com
 * http://voiceoverip-articles.com
 * http://vtechkiddiezoom.info
 * http://washburnhannahmontana.info
 * http://watchbike.com
 * http://weightkicker.com
 * http://whatcarpetcleaning.com
 * http://whatsauna.com
 * http://which-price.com
 * http://which-review.com
 * http://xmastoppicks.com
 * http://vtechkiddiezoom.info
 * http://washburnhannahmontana.info
 * http://watchbike.com
 * http://weightkicker.com
 * http://whatcarpetcleaning.com
 * http://whatsauna.com
 * http://which-price.com
 * http://which-review.com
 * http://xmastoppicks.com
 * http://whatcarpetcleaning.com
 * http://whatsauna.com
 * http://which-price.com
 * http://which-review.com
 * http://xmastoppicks.com
 * http://which-review.com
 * http://xmastoppicks.com
 * http://xmastoppicks.com
 * http://xmastoppicks.com

amazon.com referral ID: magicalmarket-20

kasamba/liveperson.com referral ID: kbid=6896

Account: --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)