Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2009 Archive Mar 1

Can someone check out these contributions?
seems to do nothing but add links to a specific website. I'm not terribly familiar with the topics he or she frequents (and they're political hot buttons) but the pattern(s) of his or her behavior make my spidey sense tingle. Can someone else glance at his or her contributions? --ElKevbo (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a definite COI vs NPOV potential. Basically, what this person is doing is adding links to a pro-Israel thinktank to every article she can think of that has to do with Israel or conflict in that part of the Middle East.  See their mission statement.  She is about to blunder straight into Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.   --Dynaflow   babble  05:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * User has now been warned about both spamming and the ArbCom decision. See: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (diff).   --Dynaflow   babble  22:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

edufire.com
Several of us have been spending time over the last week or reverting edits to multiple education-related articles by one or more editors who keep adding links to. It's clearly inappropriate and the editor(s) involved refuse to discuss the issue. I recommend adding this website to the blacklist or blocking editors; my colleagues and I are tired of policing this blatant spam. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

http://spam.angstromadvanced.com http://spam.angstrom-advanced.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 06:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

renewable-energy-future.com

 * Links


 * Accounts

Linkspamming, COI, and edit warring (including 3RR). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, another COI link added by the above named user:
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: attempted to blank this report . --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Google Adsense ID: 0255064799905576


 * Also spammed:


 * Related Eguza Media domains:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A new user just registered and spammed eye-twitch.org:


 * all 8 domains are now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.saabhistory.com
Diffs: [ 1], [ 2], [ 3], [ 4], and [ 5].


 * Spammers

swa q  17:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

allsup.com

 * Links


 * Accounts

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment 96.35.150.130 tried to delete this report. Themfromspace (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, attempted to delete it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * tried to delete it again. Matt (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

All links have been removed. Why isn't this content removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrealtor (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC) There will be no links added as these were not spam links in the true sense of the word they were related to the content area. I did not understand the specifics of the spam policy. I do now and would appreciate a removal as there was only 5 or 6 links to begin with. It was not a mass posting or anything like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrealtor (talk • contribs) 21:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikiproject Spam keeps these logs for historical reference. This information could prove valuable if the links ever become a problem again.Themfromspace (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The links have been removed already. Themfromspace (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What needs to be done to remove this content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrealtor (talk • contribs) 21:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This doesnt belong in the spam list because it was not spam, it was a relevant post but a misunderstanding of policy. How should I remove this content from the page appropriately. Adrealtor (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Now my comments are being deleted as well Adrealtor (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not your place as the original subject of this report to be removing it or any information connected to it from this page. The report will be kept for historical purposes whatever the outcome of the report is. Remember that either way it is in the page history so trying to remove it will serve no real purpose. It will be archived in due course. It is worth noting that attempts to remove a spam report by the subject do not look good for obvious reasons. If you have not been blocked for spamming at this point and no action has been taken then you would be well advised to just forget about this report and not create problems by edit warring, breaking 3RR or being accused of vandalism over its removal. Mfield (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Multiple attemps to delete report. Additionaly seems to also add
 * --Hu12 (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

hashsum.com




-Themfromspace (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

http://spam.smubla.com
Adsense pub-1411367161847985


 * Spammers

Photo sharing site, links spammed are not quite limited to one user (Samuel Raj). MER-C 12:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Airis ATM Technologies Spam

 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

theclassicalshop.net link spam
Spamming of multiple recordings of classical pieces all to their download site.

See for example
 * 1) Symphony for Organ No. 5 (Widor) (permalink) which contains 7 audio recordings of the piece -- all classicalshop download site sources. DIFF.
 * 2) Ditto at Royal Air Force College Cranwell with 3 links. DIFF.
 * 3) Their other links (Special:Linksearch results) -- often multiple links from a given page.

FT2 (Talk 20:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the removal of these links was appropriate. Themfromspace (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

drylife.co.uk bigbabyfun.com
Spammer

Repeated posting of stores in several articles from single purpose IP. Siawase (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

geminimanagementnv.com
Can someone have an objective look at the contributions of Special:Contributions/Raymond_Gorissen. This person is placing link to his company's website at various articles. He is spamming, but are these links inappropriate? See also m:User:COIBot/XWiki/geminimanagementnv.com on meta. Thanks! EdBever (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

destination360.com

 * Links


 * Accounts


 * Prior report
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Mar & Apr

This appears to be a long-standing issue, with COI edits dating back over the last few years. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Six sigma
User:VCJv has made One, two, three edits to Six sigma, all reverted so far. I guess he may keep trying until he gets bored.

 Nelson50 T 
 * Spammer
 * Timestamp. MER-C 12:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

http://spam.bulldozercat.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 08:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Still spamming. MER-C 12:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

spam.alovize.com

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers
 * Spammed on Turkish Wikipedia, see tr:Special:Contributions/88.235.168.207.
 * Spammed on Turkish Wikipedia, see tr:Special:Contributions/88.235.168.207.
 * Spammed on Turkish Wikipedia, see tr:Special:Contributions/88.235.168.207.
 * Spammed on Turkish Wikipedia, see tr:Special:Contributions/88.235.168.207.
 * Spammed on Turkish Wikipedia, see tr:Special:Contributions/88.235.168.207.

MER-C 10:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted globally on meta, see m:User:COIBot/XWiki/alovize.com. EdBever (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

spam.nurseryclass.com

 * Spammers
 * Citation spammer, see /.
 * Citation spammer, see /.
 * Citation spammer, see /.
 * Citation spammer, see /.
 * Citation spammer, see /.
 * Citation spammer, see /.


 * Citation spammer, see.
 * Citation spammer, see.


 * Citation spammer, see.
 * Citation spammer, see.


 * Spammed on Spanish Wikipedia, see es:Special:Contributions/Nursery1234.
 * Spammed on Spanish Wikipedia, see es:Special:Contributions/Nursery1234.
 * Spammed on Spanish Wikipedia, see es:Special:Contributions/Nursery1234.
 * Spammed on Spanish Wikipedia, see es:Special:Contributions/Nursery1234.
 * Spammed on Spanish Wikipedia, see es:Special:Contributions/Nursery1234.


 * Citation spammer, see.
 * Citation spammer, see.
 * Citation spammer, see.
 * Citation spammer, see.

MER-C 12:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

themapicus.com

 * Sites spammed

Looks very, very suspicious. I don't have time to investigate and cleanup right now. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts


 * Every account that I've found so far that has added this link has been used for the sole purpose of adding the link, and all of it within the last month. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: I also viewed the source for several of the links added. The site does not host any content itself, it's a front-end viewer for flickr.com content.  The site is also loaded with ad-revenue links such as google adsense and widgetbucks.com.  These appear to be clear and blatant spam to me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Two more SPA added links today:
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've submitted the link to WP:SBL due to the continued disruptive editing of adding the spam link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been added--Hu12 (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Bully stick


Per a blog comment on this page reading ''But a link can drive much traffic as our client BestBullySticks.com can attest. They have a image on the bully sticks page of Wikipedia with a reference link to their site.'' I went to the Bully Stick page and removed the spam. A few IPs reverted me until the page was semi-protected, in which out of the blue a single purpose user name reinserted the link again. Might need someone else to give them a clue that their spam isn't wanted. Themfromspace (talk) 08:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As silly as this may sound, I do need backup here as one of the users has just reverted again and has threatened to "report me". I don't want to raise an edit war so anybody who wants to give him a clue is welcome. Themfromspace (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Editor is blocked for edit-warring. He's a SPA whose only edits to date are to promote his website. --Ronz (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * bestbullysticks.com resolves to 67.192.11.2 -.
 * gibdogpetsupplies.com resolves to 76.74.147.10 -.
 * Accounts
 * Long term spam and abuse, Both links are now Blacklisted--Hu12 (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Iowa Network http://spam.theiowa.net
http://spam.hymntime.com
 * Sites spammed

http://spam.ac5wg.com http://spam.acefrye.com http://spam.actionhandyman.net http://spam.arkansaspolicelaw.com http://spam.atf-davidson.net http://spam.atfdavidson.net http://spam.atfdavidson.com http://spam.birkfamily.net http://spam.brangoccio.com http://spam.brightdirection.com http://spam.cafearabesque.com http://spam.californiapolicelaw.com http://spam.capitolcitygraphicsinc.com http://spam.cierzan.com http://spam.cox-design.com http://spam.dbmptech.com http://spam.dominionglory.com http://spam.e-bankcard.net http://spam.e-voiceproductions.com http://spam.elbeurope.org http://spam.ellesgroup.com http://spam.ericksongallery.com http://spam.ericsongallery.com http://spam.firstcallconstruction.com http://spam.floridaspolicelaw.com http://spam.iowacorn.org http://spam.frankstrong.com http://spam.friendsville.net http://spam.frye-associates.com http://spam.fryemarketing.com http://spam.fryemedia.com http://spam.ftrmotorsports.net http://spam.ftrmotorsports.com http://spam.ghoen.com http://spam.gleh.net http://spam.gpaulfrye.com http://spam.gpfrye.com http://spam.halldesignassoc.com http://spam.hdadesign.com http://spam.heartlandia.com http://spam.herbdixon.net http://spam.illinoispolicelaw.com http://spam.iowa-circulation.com http://spam.iowa-mail.net http://spam.iowaautodamage.com http://spam.iowababies.com http://spam.iowalandlord.org http://spam.iowaprayerbreakfast.com http://spam.iowaspolicelaw.com http://spam.ir-c.com http://spam.jgloyer.com http://spam.joanbirkdesigns.com http://spam.jpfrye.com http://spam.ka0vsl.com http://spam.kambafamily.com http://spam.kanefamilyonline.com http://spam.kenkrogman.com http://spam.legalsciences.com http://spam.lindysgraphics.net http://spam.lymanfamily.net http://spam.macdonaldletter.com http://spam.mcdonaldletter.com http://spam.merlehaymall.com http://spam.minnesotaspolicelaw.com http://spam.missourispolicelaw.com http://spam.moldguys.com http://spam.mossholder.net http://spam.nationalballoonmuseum.com http://spam.nebraskaspolicelaw.com http://spam.newdirectionsinc.com http://spam.newyorkspolicelaw.com http://spam.niteowlprinting.com http://spam.northdakotaspolicelaw.com http://spam.offsetart.com http://spam.ohiospolicelaw.com http://spam.nr0x.com http://spam.offsetart.com http://spam.ohiospolicelaw.com http://spam.onocologyassociatesinc.com http://spam.onpax.com http://spam.onpaxed.com http://spam.open-i-online.com http://spam.papercollect.com http://spam.patch4schools.com http://spam.pennsylvaniaspolicelaw.com http://spam.policelegalsciences.com http://spam.rrsongs.com http://spam.slightlyoff.com http://spam.sollenbarger.com http://spam.southdakotaspolicelaw.com http://spam.stamchocolate.com http://spam.stevevanoort.com http://spam.stoneseven.com http://spam.stuit.net http://spam.teamburkart.com http://spam.tebranstad.com http://spam.thetownsquare.com http://spam.timberbrookarts.com http://spam.timberbrookarts.net http://spam.timberbrookarts.org http://spam.tovrea.com http://spam.traderclone.com http://spam.vacancy4rent.com http://spam.vacancy4rent.net http://spam.we-r-handy.com http://spam.whislers.net http://spam.ziino.net
 * Related domains


 * Spammers
 * Spammer moved links up.
 * Spammer moved links up.


 * Possibly

See also User talk:EdBever. MER-C 09:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, I've been monitoring the addition of the hymntime links although I've been reluctant to remove them as the few I spot-checked seemed to be appropriate. The mass-addition should stop though, especially if it's SEO related. Nice catch on all the others. Themfromspace (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Apple Freebies
This is a refferral-system for which wikipedia is abused. See Special:Contributions/Wombletim. EdBever (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

cultreviews.com

 * -Themfromspace (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * -Themfromspace (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * -Themfromspace (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

rocheviolins.com

 * User


 * Links

Katr67 (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I cleaned these up. There were a few more IPs. Katr67 (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Recipes
I'm not sure this is the correct page to report this, but over the last couple of months, I've noticed a vandal persistently creating new accounts and adding recipe spam to random articles. Here are three diffs that occurred today: --Bagatelle (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * diff
 * diff
 * diff

From ANI:
 * Looking at, I'm wondering if this is an attempt to publish recipes from cookeatshare.com. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at, I'm wondering if this is an attempt to publish recipes from cookeatshare.com. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at, I'm wondering if this is an attempt to publish recipes from cookeatshare.com. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at, I'm wondering if this is an attempt to publish recipes from cookeatshare.com. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at, I'm wondering if this is an attempt to publish recipes from cookeatshare.com. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at, I'm wondering if this is an attempt to publish recipes from cookeatshare.com. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at, I'm wondering if this is an attempt to publish recipes from cookeatshare.com. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at, I'm wondering if this is an attempt to publish recipes from cookeatshare.com. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at, I'm wondering if this is an attempt to publish recipes from cookeatshare.com. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at, I'm wondering if this is an attempt to publish recipes from cookeatshare.com. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at, I'm wondering if this is an attempt to publish recipes from cookeatshare.com. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at, I'm wondering if this is an attempt to publish recipes from cookeatshare.com. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at, I'm wondering if this is an attempt to publish recipes from cookeatshare.com. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at, I'm wondering if this is an attempt to publish recipes from cookeatshare.com. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at, I'm wondering if this is an attempt to publish recipes from cookeatshare.com. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at, I'm wondering if this is an attempt to publish recipes from cookeatshare.com. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at, I'm wondering if this is an attempt to publish recipes from cookeatshare.com. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at, I'm wondering if this is an attempt to publish recipes from cookeatshare.com. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at, I'm wondering if this is an attempt to publish recipes from cookeatshare.com. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at, I'm wondering if this is an attempt to publish recipes from cookeatshare.com. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

http://spam.preventinfertility.info
Adsensepub-3662733476962109
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

New categories for spammer talk pages
As of today, when new spam, advertising or coi warning templates are placed on spammers' talk pages, the template when substituted will automatically add the page to the appropriate new category below: -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 05:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:User talk pages with Spam-warn notices
 * Category:User talk pages with Uw-advert1 notices
 * Category:User talk pages with Uw-advert2 notices
 * Category:User talk pages with Uw-advert3 notices
 * Category:User talk pages with Uw-advert4 notices
 * Category:User talk pages with Uw-advert4im notices
 * Category:User talk pages with Uw-affiliate notices
 * Category:User talk pages with Uw-coi notices
 * Category:User talk pages with Uw-spam1 notices
 * Category:User talk pages with Uw-spam2 notices
 * Category:User talk pages with Uw-spam3 notices
 * Category:User talk pages with Uw-spam4 notices
 * Category:User talk pages with Uw-spam4im notices
 * Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for spamming
 * Category:Wikipedians who have temporarily been blocked for spamming
 * WOW. Someones been busy! Great work!!--Hu12 (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated! Themfromspace (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

earthpano.com

 * Link


 * Accounts

Multiple IP and SPA account that have all been adding the same non-notable panoramic site to multiple articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * An additional user in the same IP range added a link today:
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

counter-tenor dot net
Site

Accounts

-Themfromspace (talk) 09:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

bigbabyfun.com and drylife.co.uk

 * Sites


 * Accounts

-Themfromspace (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

safehookup.com (NSFW)




-Themfromspace (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Links direct to file downloads
I was shocked to discover a direct link to file download of a .ZIP file embedded as a reference in an article. It presented itself as a free download of an old version of some software. I of course removed it, but talk about something that could be major copyright violation or a way for scammers to distribute malware. Considering that we are not a web directory, can we get the spam block app to remove links to URLs ending in .ZIP, .EXE or anything else of that nature? And if there's some other place to report this, let me know, because this seems like a really important thing to get accomplished. DreamGuy (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In perl, something like '\.zip$' would block everything ending in .zip. Not sure what the 'end of line' modifier is for php.  Guess this could be blacklisted, otherwise at least on xlinkbot here.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, had a short chat with Lustiger Seth. '\.zip\z' would be better.  He was however not sure if it really would help, because the really bad stuff is named like 'example.org/funny_bunny.html' (surprise downloads .. ).  But it may help a bit.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

New template: LinkSummaryLive
I've created a variant of LinkSummary that automatically adds a live link to the domain of concern at the end of the domain information:


 * LinkSummaryLive

compare with LinkSummary "classic":
 * LinkSummary

Neither template should be substituted ("subst"). -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! This is a great asset! Themfromspace (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In a way handy, makes tracking easier, but ... this might result in pages not wanting to save when archived, just as with the current live links .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's why I created a second template -- if you think a site's likely to be blacklisted, just use LinkSummary. To get rid of live links after the fact, just cut the "Live" out of the template. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like there's an extra pipe at the end of the "live" url, that is currently preventing it from working. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I fixed this, but a template-savvy person might want to look over my work. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have adapted COIBot to pick this one up. You're right A., and it may be certainly be handy.
 * I was thinking. If the link here would be spam.example.org/spam, and we whitelist '\bspam\..*?\/spam\b', then we could blacklist what we want ... --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Presently, the template uses ".sss" just after the "http://". Should we use something else? (I'm reluctant to use "spam" since that has a pejorative connotation). -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the whitelisting would be more helpful if we 'wrap' it in something. 'sss' Is fine, one could consider to put that at the end as well, and write an appropriate whitelist rule (one that can only minimally be abused).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm doubtful of the benefits of whitelisting in this way. I suspect it wouldn't take long for a spammer to figure it out, and to create a "sss." page that forwards to the main page of their site.  We can always try it, and just be prepared to remove it later if/when it does get abused as a bypass around the blacklist.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What that regards, it is better to use 'spam' .. I wonder if they would really like to be linked as http://spam.mylink.somewhere/spam (if we use end and beginning of line markers, that is the ONLY way they can use the link then, i.e. the regex ^spam\..*?\/spam\z!). We could put it in a mix of hexadecimal and octadecimal code, so it does not read as spam when read.  Also, the link does not have to be visible, make it mylink.somewhere and the spam is hidden.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That should be a good way to deal with it - it would be pretty obvious when viewing external links if anyone is abusing the whitelisting. As an extra safety measure, it would be convenient to find a search that could spot the use of links wrapped in that text in the article namespace.  Any suggestions on a query that could accomplish that?  I've tried a few possibilities, but can't locate one that would be useful for this.  I would still say we should go ahead and implement, even without a query - although a query would be nice to have available. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi!
 * I don't think, all this is a good idea. It's somehow sophisticated/obfuscated and a misuse of both the sbl and the wikipedia functions.
 * However, I guess, the majority doesn't mind (just like the last times when I said, that this strange workaround spam.example.org should be omitted) ...
 * So let me first give you technical support. After that I'll give an example to show why I don't think those tricky things will help us.
 * We can't use ^ for BOL withing the sbl, see extension manual (or source code). This could be worked around by using zero-width positve look-behind assertions, i.e., use  instead of.
 * Apart from that it's not necessary to use non-greedy, just use
 * Thus the whole entry could be
 * That's compatible with php's PCRE and perl, btw.
 * So this would be a valid entry. But still it would be easy for bad guys to misuse that "feature", e.g. htt p://spam.o n.nimp.org/spam (DON'T GO TO THAT PAGE! it could crash your browser).
 * -- seth (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * -- seth (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Related gr linkspam

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

--Hu12 (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

COI Citation spam
Vink, Dennis Nyenrode Business University
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

Adds links to his own work--Hu12 (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

iamstrong.org

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

COI Spamming of Matt Keegan articles

 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

User only edits to link to work which he created and continues (longterm) to use wikipedia to promote his work.--Hu12 (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paint_It_Black_(band)
in the backround information a user named Onionarisen keeps edditing it to enter spam messages to users on the gamefaqs site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.99.90 (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

powerhour(mixes|dvd|game).com
Account

User has been spamming powerhourmixes.com, powerhourdvd.com, and powerhourgame.com in the entry for Power Hour. 204.52.215.6 (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Links
 * Added LinkSummary for easier reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Added LinkSummary for easier reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Added LinkSummary for easier reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Added LinkSummary for easier reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This appears to be an on-going edit war to add commercial linkspam. Various IPs and SPA accounts have been re-inserting the spam and game-guide content for at least the past year.  Explaination of the removal of the content has been on the talk page, with no replies from any of the accounts that are re-inserting the links and disputed content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional link added by same IP:
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

meetinnovators.com

 * Already blocked Diffs        A new name 2008 (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Already blocked diffs  A new name 2008 (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * diffs   A new name 2008 (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * diff A new name 2008 (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * diff A new name 2008 (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

attractcapital.com

 * Looks suspicious, but don't have the time to follow up. --Ronz (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks suspicious, but don't have the time to follow up. --Ronz (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)



COI spamming of references

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

SPA is solely adding borderline reference links from this publication. Not sure if this is straight up spamming, but its definitely not 100% kosher. Username suggests COI. ccwaters (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

newyorktimesbestsellerlist.org

 * ELs and references to blog. Mfield (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ELs and references to blog. Mfield (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ELs and references to blog. Mfield (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * despite the title, this is actually a blog about best selling books, and why the nyt lets them use their name for it is beyond me. In general of course we shouldn't use it. But it is conceivable that there might on occassion be an actual author interview there that would be usable, so I wouldn't blacklist. DGG (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The only author interviews I've seen there have been copyright violations of other sites, and thus totally unusable. DreamGuy (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Which ones and where from? That would be interesting, and would make blacklisting the whole lot easier. Mfield (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One I saw was "interview with Larry King" and copied transcript of Larry King's CNN program interview without permission. I think one was a copy of a Salon article as well, and placed into an artile in place of an existing link to the actual Salon article. I've been through so many now I don't know which was which. Since I'm removing these by hand I'll look at others as I get to them and report back. DreamGuy (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they all are copyright violations. These are the first ones I checked today:


 * Stephenie Meyer has a ref link titled "Time Magazine Interview with Stephenie Meyer" that links to this site, and, sure enough, http://www.newyorktimesbestsellerlist.org/archives/17 is nothing but the article from TIME magazine used without permission.
 * Tyra Banks has an external link "Tyra Banks interview on books" to a CNN interview copied and pasted without permission.
 * Carrie Fisher has a link to http://www.newyorktimesbestsellerlist.org/reviews/carrie-fisher which is copied from a variety of sources, including Psychology Today. It's very clear these were not used with permission.

The whole site is a massive attempt to scam people into thinking it's an official NYT site with blatantly stolen content with ads served up left and right and linkfarmed to Wikipedia. DreamGuy (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Same accounts spamming this site is also spamming automatedebook.net DreamGuy (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've now deleted all links to this site (was on some 65 pages, sometimes with multiple links per site hidden as refs) per hand except for the three mentioned above. I will go through and get those in a few days. Not sure what good listing something here is if I have to delete it all myself anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The existing ones always have to removed manually. I have filled a BOT request User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList to catch future additions. Mfield (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

http://spam.axebet.com

 * Spammers
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see ru:Special:Contributions/94.27.110.242.
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see ru:Special:Contributions/94.27.110.242.

MER-C 11:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Requested blacklisting -- Dferg (w:en: - w:es:) 19:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

External links noticeboard
I just started a discussion on the Village Pump about an external links noticeboard and I'm inviting feedback from those of you here that are involved with external links on Wikipedia. Themfromspace (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

houseloanmodifications.com
Flowanda | Talk 20:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

http://spam.groodo.com
Adsense pub-0721625504498861


 * Spammers
 * Spammer moved links up.
 * Spammer moved links up.
 * Spammer moved links up.
 * Spammer moved links up.
 * Spammer moved links up.


 * Citation spammer, see and.
 * Citation spammer, see and.



MER-C 12:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Updated. MER-C 12:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Metropolitan museum of art
Stradfan's contributions show that he is out to promote the Metropolitan Museum of Art in the field of music, but I haven't reverted him because some of his (dozens and dozens) of links appear to be valid. Would somebody else look over this guy to make sure this is legit? Thanks, Themfromspace (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Adsense pub-2149132956849100
http://spam.pakplay.com http://spam.gsmspice.com http://spam.songs5.com
 * Sites spammed

http://spam.folsol.com http://spam.thehindimusic.com http://spam.sms4impress.com http://spam.shayarinsms.com http://spam.songsmastee.com
 * Related domains


 * Spammers

MER-C 12:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

http://spam.ice-vajal.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 12:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Various domains apparently associated with whypark.com


...all of which share the same template and overall format, and have their DNS hosted by whypark.com, who appear to be a provider of "domain development" services. All of them seem to be hosted at the same IP address, 98.129.126.138. I've removed all the instances of links to the above I can find.

Spam accounts:
 * 1) (diff) (diff) (diff)
 * 2) (diff) (diff) (diff) (diff)

...both of which are persistent slow-motion link spammers, with habits of making very similar edits to talk pages. Both have been now blocked for 3 months.

Is there a way of blocking whole categories of URLs leading to autogenerated pages like this, based on their common DNS or IP hosting arrangements?

-- Karada (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not without massive collateral damage. Quatloo (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Zenithpress
User account has added references to over 20 books published by Zenith Press. Newguy34 (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * User account has since been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because username does not meet username policy. Newguy34 (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

taxworry.com

 * Ad-heavy site that probably never meets WP:EL. Looks like others have noticed this and warned editors like TaxQuery, but ip's have continued the spamming.
 * I don't have time to follow up. Help appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Got the set that was there when I checked. DreamGuy (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! No other editors or ips involved? --Ronz (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't look to see who added them, I just killed them off. Wasn't a huge pile, though, so I don't think it was too widespread. DreamGuy (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Got the set that was there when I checked. DreamGuy (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! No other editors or ips involved? --Ronz (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't look to see who added them, I just killed them off. Wasn't a huge pile, though, so I don't think it was too widespread. DreamGuy (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Virtual Collection of Masterpieces http://spam.masterpieces.asemus.museum

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Accounts

It looks like a good source of images for Commons but the pile of SPAs and the methodology is concerning. MER-C 09:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The site requires Microsoft SIlverlight to view the images, and as such is completely useless to a large number of Wikipedia users. It therefore fails WP:EL criteria and should not be linked to anywhere except on the main article about it (which would be nice if it had some third party sources for information outside of itself instead of just being a brochure). I'll go around removing some links based upon how much time I have and how many there are. DreamGuy (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Updated. It's also rather annoying to see that the suggested replacement for the copyvio article (which was reinstated) is another copyvio. Sigh. Time to start handing out spam4ims. MER-C 08:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Antratel Pty Ltd
Adsense pub-2564752536730595


 * Spam pages

http://spam.weatherpage.com.au http://spam.weatherpage.co.nz http://spam.russianworld.com.au http://spam.tripleme.com
 * Sites spammed

http://spam.onlybest.com.au
 * Related domains


 * Spammers

MER-C 11:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

ncwpics.com

 * Links


 * Accounts


 * Prior reports of link
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Oct 1

Ongoing linkspamming that has been repeatedly re-inserted by same user, and removed by multiple editors. User has received warnings in September 2008, October 2008, and March 2009. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the IPs again added the link today without discussion, despite prior warnings. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

pastthepages.ca





 * This spa has been doing nothing but promote this website for about a year.  Them From  Space  19:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

equilar.com

 * Link


 * Accounts

Single purpose account, spamming link to multiple articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The link continues to be added by the SPA account . I've removed the blatant advert wording of each addition, and removed it from company articles - but I have for now left the core data on the articles about the CEOs themselves.  However, I think someone else should review these to see if that's appropriate, or if they entries should be removed completely. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The SPA account ontinues to spam the link, using the same promotional text with each addition of the link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The user has also begun removing competing sites that mention comparable statistics while inserting his link, such as in the edit here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

cipplanner.com

 * Link


 * Accounts

User spamming site to multiple articles. The user has already been blocked for exceeding four warnings - reported here for tracking purposes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Another account:
 * An IP has also been spamming the link to multiple articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * An IP has also been spamming the link to multiple articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

wise-pages.com

 * Links


 * Accounts

Spamming and link hijacking to insert link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User:MattKeegan
Per WP:COIN incident, this user has been spamming essays hosted under these domains into various articles. -- samj in out 22:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

http://spam.smubla.com
Adsense pub-1411367161847985


 * Previous incidents
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2009 Archive Mar 1


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers
 * , who is still spamming

MER-C 11:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

http://spam.eastcoastaudios.in

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 11:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

http://spam.irinnews.org

 * Accounts

Normally I'd just revert + spam2, but this site belongs to the United Nations. Editing pattern is very suspicious. MER-C 11:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

http://spam.autoworld.com.my http://spam.jobstreet.com

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


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

MER-C 12:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

http://spam.lawtv.com
http://spam.lawschool.com http://spam.lawschool100.com http://spam.patentbarexam.biz http://spam.freempre.com
 * Sites spammed

http://spam.illinoisbarreview.com http://spam.lawschool250.com http://spam.lawcentral.com http://spam.chesslaw.com http://spam.legalworld.com http://spam.enpassant.com http://spam.ruleoflaw.com http://spam.willcentral.com http://spam.legaled.com http://spam.supremecourt.org http://spam.nationallawyer.com http://spam.newsmonth.com http://spam.lawdictionary.com http://spam.alabamabarreview.com http://spam.arizonabarreview.com http://spam.californiabarreview.com http://spam.coloradobarreview.com http://spam.connecticutbarreview.com http://spam.floridabarreview.com http://spam.georgiabarreview.com http://spam.hawaiibarreview.com http://spam.idahobarreview.com http://spam.iowabarreview.com http://spam.kybarreview.com http://spam.louisianabarreview.com http://spam.mainebarreview.com http://spam.michiganbarreview.com http://spam.minnesotabarreview.com http://spam.mississippibarreview.com http://spam.missouribarreview.com http://spam.nevadabarreview.com http://spam.nybarreview.com http://spam.oklahomabarreview.com http://spam.oregonbarreview.com http://spam.pabarreview.com http://spam.scbarreview.com http://spam.tennesseebarreview.com http://spam.texasbarreview.com http://spam.utahbarreview.com http://spam.vabarreview.com http://spam.wabarreview.com http://spam.wvbarreview.com http://spam.wisconsinbarreview.com
 * Related domains


 * Spammers

There's probably more, but that's enough spam for the day. MER-C 12:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Edenrage and athomenet.com
Would appreciate somebody keeping an eye on this... Clear conflict of interest and abuse of WP:EL etc. I would have blocked if I had done the digging earlier rather than get involved. See the voluminous discussions at: Appreciated/wangi (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * also very likely socks:
 * also very likely socks:
 * also very likely socks:
 * Talk:Homeowners' association
 * User talk:Edenrage
 * User talk:Wangi/archive 06 & User talk:Wangi
 * Talk:Community association
 * and the many user talk pages solicited

Re: Apparent Spamming of Multiple "References" and external links by commercial websites
It appears that the Meteorite and meteorite related articles are very popular places for commercial websites to add links to their sites. We spent several hours yesterday removing dozens of links and "references" to commercial websites (see edit history). Today user Basilicofresco has replaced all of these links to commercial websites.

We were under the impression that external links to commercial websites were frowned upon? Were we mistaken? Also it does not seem appropriate for a commercial website to be repeatedly and inappropriately referenced (up to 4 times) within a single paragraph, even if that website puts up some "informational" pages on their commercial website? e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enstatite_chondrite

Did we misunderstand Wikipedias anti spam guidelines?

Sincerely

Mannheim 34 (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not every "dot com" address is a "commercial" address. Sites we want to avoid are ones whose placement on Wikipedia is intended to promote the site or any products it sells.  Sites like  are welcome if they are properly referenced in the articles as they constitute reliable sources. A commercial link in the "external links" section of an article is much more suspect.  Them  From  Space  18:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with Themfromspace. I really hate commercial promotion on Wikipedia but... we cannot ban a useful, informative and properly referenced webpage because on a different page on that site there is something for sale. As you can see these are not web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising as stated in External links. These weblinks are not promoting products. We simply cannot use a "dealer list" to ban domains on sight. Well yes, I feel someone just failed to understand the meaning of antispam guidelines. Please discuss before start a edit war. -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 22:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Virtually all of the Sites that were removed as "Commercial" sites can be found on this list of Commercial Dealers:

http://www.meteorite.com/dealer_list.htm

If advertising as a commercial dealer doesn't make a site commercial then what does?

Mannheim 34 (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read my answer few lines above. BTW are we talking about the same page? I mean: where do you see objectionable amounts of advertising in ? OhNoitsJamie pointed out that "that there are plenty of academic sources that meet reliable sources guidelines", but the guideline does not encourage the use of primary sources (see Reliable sources) and in this field secondary sources are often easier to find and to understand than primary sources. For example primary sources may be not in english, hard to find or expensive to read or pretty difficult to understand . In my opinion both kind of sources can -an should- coexist because references are meant to be useful. Guidelines do permits them. Please consider to restore at least the most useful links. --  Basilicofresco  (msg) 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, ...SO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THAT IT'S OK TO SPAM WIKIPEDIA AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE SO LONG AS YOU LINK TO A PAGE ON A COMMERCIAL WEBSITE W/ A LITTLE BIT OF "INFORMATION" ON IT. KIND OF LIKE AN MINI-INFOMERCIAL. THANKS FOR CLARIFYING WIKIPEDIA'S ANTI-SPAMMING GUIDELINES. FROM NOW ON WE WILL BE SURE THAT WE TELL OUR FRIENDS IN ADVERTISING TO PUT A LITTLE "INFORMATION" IN ALL OF THE ADVERTISEMENTS, UH, I MEAN "REFERENCES" THAT THEY ADD TO WIKIPEDIA.

INCREDIBLY, WIKIPEDIA WAS ACTUALLY ONCE CONSIDERED BY SOME TO BE A SOURCE OF SOMEWHAT RELIABLE INFORMATION. WE RECENTLY EXAMINED HUNDREDS OF WIKIPEDIA "REFERENCES" AND "EXTERNAL LINKS" AND FOUND A HUGE NUMBER, IF NOT MAJORITY OF THEM BLATANTLY LINKING DIRECTLY TO COMMERCIAL WEBSITES. AFTER BRINGING THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS SO CALLED ANTI-SPAM GROUP IT IS CLEAR FROM THE RESPONSE THAT THIS TYPE OF SPAMMING IS ACTUALLY ENCOURAGED HERE AT WIKIPEDIA. IN FACT SOME EDITORS APPEAR TO GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO ADD MORE SPAM IN THE GUISE OF "REFERENCES". IN OUR OPINION, THIS TYPE OF PROFLIGATE SPAMMING DEBASES WIKIPEDIA EVEN FURTHER AND MAKES IT JUST ABOUT AS RELIABLE A SOURCE OF INFORMATION AS AN INFOMERCIAL FROM THE COAL INDUSTRY. AFTER THE PATHETIC NEWS ABOUT A PROMINENT WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR http://www.itworld.com/nlsblog070306 IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT WIKIPEDIA NEEDS ANY MORE NEGATIVE PUBLICITY...

WE FIND IT PARTICULARLY INTERESTING THAT COMPANIES OF THE LIKE OF AIG, CITIGROUP, MERRIL LYNCH, STATE FARM, REMAX REALTY, OVERSTOCK.COM, AND THOUSANDS OF OTHER MEGA CORPORATIONS, ALL HAVE FREE FULL PAGE ADVERTISEMENTS, UH-I MEAN IMPORTANT WIKI PAGES, WITH MULTIPLE LINKS TO THEIR COMMERCIAL WEBSITES. I GUESS WIKIPEDIA'S "RULES" ABOUT SPAMMING ARE JUST FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLE...

MAYBE ONE OF WIKIPEDIA'S SPAMOPHILES WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN WHY WIKIPEDIA GIVES POWERFUL MEGA-CORPORATIONS PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT WITH FREE FULL PAGE ADVERTISEMENTS AND MULTIPLE LINKS TO THEIR WEBSITES, WHILE CLAIMING TO FIGHT SPAM AND REPRESENTING ITSELF AS AN UNBIASED SOURCE OF RELIABLE INFORMATION?

Mannheim 34 (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * what we give preference to is informative sites. There are many hobbyist sites where we do link to small specialist dealers who despite commercial orientation, provide the best available information of subjects. More often, larger companies do. They both have an ultimate ulterior purpose in mind, of establishing them as authorities. But they both can be of great value none the less in special circumstances. The best known examples -- and in the print era -- known to me are the CRC Handbook, and the Merck Manual. Produce something like that and we will link. DGG (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

DGG It is glaring obvious to anyone that actually bothers to check wikipedias so called "references" that wikipedia is a spammers paradise. Your feeble attempt to justify spammers as being "authorities" of some kind and as having "the best available information" clearly demonstrates exactly why this wannabe encyclopedia had degenerated to that state that it has.

Mannheim 34 (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're obviously not familiar with the two examples I mentioned, DGG (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to say that there is some truth in what Mannheim 34 says. I have often seen a site with googleadsense described as commercial spam (and removed from Wikipedia) - whilst websites which may charge people a good deal of money to advertise (ie are full-blown commercial sites) are not so described nor are they removed. JaneVannin (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

greenroofs.com

 * Link


 * Accounts

Spamming of links to multiple articles that are only tangentically related. Also, the author has an apparent WP:COI with the linked articles (user name the same as the author of the articles linked). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What do spams do???
What do they do? Do thay hack your computer or something??

user:fuzzyhair2 —Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC).
 * they diminish confidence in the material in the encyclopedia. They remove the distinction between Wikipedia and Google. Both good things, but for different purposes. DGG (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

history-for-kids.com

 * Link


 * Accounts

Accounts adding links to "childrens poems" into multiple articles; the added links provide no additional factual material. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

User:KrissyPope

 * Accounts

Adding "advertorial" spam for Sports Marketing Group (SMG) to multiple sports articles. Obvious pattern of edits to highlight SMG as source of various studies of questionable relevance to articles. Simishag (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

http://spam.baeblemusic.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 00:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

http://spam.explore.org

 * Spammers
 * Spammer moved links up.
 * Spammer moved links up.
 * Spammer moved links up.



MER-C 00:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Updated. MER-C 05:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Adsense pub-0397881907573464
http://spam.friendee-freda.com http://spam.pocuk.com http://spam.mdocuk.co.uk http://spam.toyotabbclub.com http://spam.tlocuk.co.uk http://spam.nx3.co.uk http://spam.stepwagonclub.com
 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 11:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Related domains:
 * Additional account:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional account:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional account:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional account:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional account:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional account:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional account:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor 72.194.208.71
Editors

Links
 * Multiple warnings and a likely coi (these sites all appear to be run by the same organization). I think a blacklisting is more appropriate given the content of the sites. --Ronz (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor has been given a 24 hr block for continuing the spamming. I still think we'll need the blacklisting. --Ronz (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Multiple warnings and a likely coi (these sites all appear to be run by the same organization). I think a blacklisting is more appropriate given the content of the sites. --Ronz (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor has been given a 24 hr block for continuing the spamming. I still think we'll need the blacklisting. --Ronz (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor has been given a 24 hr block for continuing the spamming. I still think we'll need the blacklisting. --Ronz (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

khwajagharibnawaz.net
personal web site, asking for donations: khwajagharibnawaz.net/urssharif.htm.

Spammed from at least four IP addresses:    dougweller (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC) And dougweller (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Still spamming.


 * Spammers


 * MER-C 08:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Updated. MER-C 06:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And again. Also:




 * MER-C 04:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Both ✅ WilliamH (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

http://spam.abbasiandcompany.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 13:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)