Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2011 Archive Feb 1

AusBT
About a week or so ago I noticed an IP mass adding AusBT (Australian Business Traveller) articles as a cited source (when other main stream articles exist), but this seem to be a far more concerning issue as a number of IPs (likely more IPs I don't yet know about) have been adding it. My view is that they are using Wikipedia to try and make their search ratings higher as well as using it to advertise themselves. One IP even admitted to be from AusBT. Another editor has pointed out that AusBT may not a reliable source, which I agree with.

Website:

Known IPs

Bidgee (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ausbt.com.au/etc/about-us: "Editorial staff - Dan Warne"
 * ausbt.com.au/etc/about-us: "Editorial staff - Dan Warne"
 * ausbt.com.au/etc/about-us: "Editorial staff - Dan Warne"
 * ausbt.com.au/etc/about-us: "Editorial staff - Dan Warne"
 * ausbt.com.au/etc/about-us: "Editorial staff - Dan Warne"
 * ausbt.com.au/etc/about-us: "Editorial staff - Dan Warne"
 * ausbt.com.au/etc/about-us: "Editorial staff - Dan Warne"
 * ausbt.com.au/etc/about-us: "Editorial staff - Dan Warne"
 * ausbt.com.au/etc/about-us: "Editorial staff - Dan Warne"
 * ausbt.com.au/etc/about-us: "Editorial staff - Dan Warne"


 * Related domains, also spammed:


 * Haven't cleaned this bunch yet. MER-C 12:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly a wide-spread WP:REFSPAM campaign. ausbt.com.au's registration states "'Registrant: THE MOTOR REPORT PTY LTD'". Admited WP:COI ("we ARE reliable...") and false edit summaries are never a signs of good faith. Adding to, for now...--Hu12 (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly a wide-spread WP:REFSPAM campaign. ausbt.com.au's registration states "'Registrant: THE MOTOR REPORT PTY LTD'". Admited WP:COI ("we ARE reliable...") and false edit summaries are never a signs of good faith. Adding to, for now...--Hu12 (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Continued:
 * ausbt.com.au/etc/about-us: "Editorial staff - David Flynn"
 * MER-C 03:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * MER-C 03:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

songsofthebeatles.com
Adsense pub-6232557366897383
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

Adsense scrapper/ copyvio site, Domain Created on: 19-Jan-11 --Hu12 (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet again., ✅--Hu12 (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Continuing BL'd--Hu12 (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Continuing BL'd--Hu12 (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Continuing BL'd--Hu12 (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Continuing BL'd--Hu12 (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

cooperspick.com


Adding WP:REFSPAM for Cooper's Sports Pick betting tip site to sports-related articles. --CliffC (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See also this, where under their original username they say, "As owner of the content I give full permission of Creative Commons to have the information used from the site: www.cooperspick.com for the sports betting terms and gambling definitions..." --CliffC (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Also;
 * Chartomarco AKA ; "I am starting a website called (http://)www.cooperspick.com which will launch in August of 2009... "
 * and sockpuppet accounts;
 * --Hu12 (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Another concern; The site attemps to execute code thru installing an addon (cooperspick.com/fullarticle.asp?566-Sportsbook), never desirable. Previous history with this individual (asside from multiple name changes) includes spamming another of his sites ""garagesalestracker.com"";
 * under the username Charto911;
 * and sockpuppet (Slightstk);
 * Summary. Modifying others posts, using sockpuppets, subverting blocks, continued distruption.. so per;
 * BLOCK
 * Persistent spamming
 * Breaching the sock puppetry policy;
 * 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.
 * The site(s) have been blacklisted also.✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Summary. Modifying others posts, using sockpuppets, subverting blocks, continued distruption.. so per;
 * BLOCK
 * Persistent spamming
 * Breaching the sock puppetry policy;
 * 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.
 * The site(s) have been blacklisted also.✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The site(s) have been blacklisted also.✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

vitals.com
Reports of doctors behind a very spammy paywall, being added by IP(s). tedder (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * MDx Medical, Inc related
 * Accounts
 * --Hu12 (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

marrakech-loisirs.com

 * Previous incidents
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Nov 1


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 12:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)




 * Looks like there might be some cross-wiki spamming involved (fr:Special:Contributions/Hussaima), to the local for now..--Hu12 (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Continued with plain text spamming:




 * That's uncomfortably similar to my username. MER-C 02:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've contacted the blocking admin about this. --Hu12 (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

cubesat.ifastnet.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Continued additions of fansite link by 74.56.151.15 today on CubeSat, blocked 48hrs. Also have observed Cross wiki talk page spamming, here and on de.wikipedia, which further ties these IP's.
 * Cross wiki
 * de:Spezial:Beiträge/74.56.151.15
 * --Hu12 (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Now adding google search "cubesat+forum" to the page. --Hu12 (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Now adding google search "cubesat+forum" to the page. --Hu12 (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Bodhi linux
is an account creating promotional and copyvio articles. It is closely connected to the Bodhi linux project, as stated here. The account was blocked for spamming / advertising back in November 2010, see the block log. In my opinion, this kind of editing is unacceptable for Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Article spam
 * 09:31, 11 November 2010 "MDoffice" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))
 * 07:26, 11 November 2010 "MDoffice" ‎ (Spam (WP:CSD#G11))
 * 09:15, 10 November 2010 "MDoffice" ‎ (A3: Article that has no meaningful, substantive content)
 * Articles for deletion/Bordeaux (software)
 * 08:46, 3 February 2011 "Bodhi linux" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
 * 07:42, 3 February 2011 "Bodhi linux" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of www.bodhilinux.com/about.html)
 * 00:41, 2 March 2011 deleted "Bodhi linux" ‎ (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
 * Also
 * 16:45, 23 February 2011 (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Multiple recreations, including Bodhi linux) (view/restore)
 * 00:04, 11 January 2011 ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (view/restore)
 * User:Ottermaton/Bodhi Linux
 * 00:04, 11 January 2011 "Bodhi Linux" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
 * (cur | prev)  23:28, 27 February 2011 MarmotteNZ (872 bytes) (Initial skeleton of an article)
 * 22:17, 1 March 2011 deleted "Bodhi (operating system)" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: no assertion of notability, OS is still in development and has not yet had a stable release. This article is promotional.)
 * Looks as if that account has been indeff'd. Agree, Vejvančický, asside from the article spam, the personal attacks are also unacceptable. Keep an eye out in the same subject matter, these types of accounts typicaly come back...--Hu12 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice, Hu12, and thanks for correcting my report :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting this. Seems this user has a relatively lengthy and problematic history of abuse on wikipedia.--Hu12 (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Still being recreated adding two IP's associated (added above). --Hu12 (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * another recreation...--Hu12 (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 16:45, 23 February 2011 (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Multiple recreations, including Bodhi linux) (view/restore)
 * 00:04, 11 January 2011 ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (view/restore)
 * User:Ottermaton/Bodhi Linux
 * 00:04, 11 January 2011 "Bodhi Linux" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
 * (cur | prev)  23:28, 27 February 2011 MarmotteNZ (872 bytes) (Initial skeleton of an article)
 * 22:17, 1 March 2011 deleted "Bodhi (operating system)" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: no assertion of notability, OS is still in development and has not yet had a stable release. This article is promotional.)
 * Looks as if that account has been indeff'd. Agree, Vejvančický, asside from the article spam, the personal attacks are also unacceptable. Keep an eye out in the same subject matter, these types of accounts typicaly come back...--Hu12 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice, Hu12, and thanks for correcting my report :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting this. Seems this user has a relatively lengthy and problematic history of abuse on wikipedia.--Hu12 (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Still being recreated adding two IP's associated (added above). --Hu12 (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * another recreation...--Hu12 (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * another recreation...--Hu12 (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Carcanet Press Ltd Spamming

 * Article spam
 * Article spam


 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

SEO WP:REFSPAMing campaign--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Spamming of French site

 * Accounts
 * Accounts


 * Cross wiki Accounts


 * fr:Special:Contributions/82.238.173.246
 * fr:Special:Contributions/91.163.219.233
 * en:Special:Contributions/82.238.173.246
 * en:Special:Contributions/Thierrypipik
 * en:Special:Contributions/Lolipop59
 * fr:Special:Contributions/Thierrypipik
 * fr:Special:Contributions/83.182.147.146
 * fr:Special:Contributions/91.168.135.103

--Hu12 (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

polishcastles.eu
google_ad_client = pub- 9790957467030859
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Need a second opinion on a spam link at Jack in the Box
User:Fredgodo has attempted to add this linkto the end of the citations of Jack in the Box. I have removed it a few times as it appears to just be a spam link, but the user insists that it should be there. Could someone take a look so as to get this right.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would concur with the spam nature of this link. It adds nothing to the understanding of the company. Also based on the limited number of edits by all of which seem to be an attempt to add "marketing works agency" to various articles (to say nothing of the attempts to add them as a reference, thus trying to avoid WP:EL considerations) there looks to be WP:COI problems. MarnetteD | Talk 22:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * links
 * account
 * see also
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marketingworks
 * After looking at the target page, I would agree that it fails as an external link, and it's clearly not being used as a reference (and would likely fail WP:RS anyway). Given the SPA behavior in promoting links to Marketingworks, I also agree that there's a high likelyhood of a WP:COI. --- Barek (talk) - 23:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marketingworks
 * After looking at the target page, I would agree that it fails as an external link, and it's clearly not being used as a reference (and would likely fail WP:RS anyway). Given the SPA behavior in promoting links to Marketingworks, I also agree that there's a high likelyhood of a WP:COI. --- Barek (talk) - 23:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In the future, please make reports like this at WP:ELN. I agree with you: the link does not assist the article, and I am now watching so if you like you can leave the next revert to me (although Barek will probably beat me!). Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

espoirtech.com



 * Spammers
 * : Symmonds,Matthews, Suresh Namboothiri, Espoir Smart Communication Companion (2010), Espoir Press (2nd Ed)
 * : Symmonds,Matthews, Suresh Namboothiri, Espoir Smart Communication Companion (2010), Espoir Press (2nd Ed)
 * : Symmonds,Matthews, Suresh Namboothiri, Espoir Smart Communication Companion (2010), Espoir Press (2nd Ed)

MER-C 08:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC) ..

Strange contributions pattern
is adding many references to sites with strange .info domain names, such as to the swimming pool article, to the bed sheet article, and, my favourite, to the towel article. What can be done about this, since this editor is using multiple spam domains? Graham 87 04:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Adsense pub-5412542100964394
 * Google Analytics UA-1282023


 * Additional spammed domains:


 * Related domains


 * MER-C 09:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

persianminiaturepaintings.com



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



MER-C 10:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ping
Eyes from here might be helpful on this request I just posted to ANI. --RobthTalk 05:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

aspnetbook.com - refspam?


Can someone take a look over WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/aspnetbook.com? This link has been added pretty often within the past month to reference some articles by what appears to be a dynamic IP. Should these be removed as spam, or is the referencing helpful?  Them From  Space  21:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just looking at the link itself, it doesn't seem inherantly spammy. Not knowing much about ASP, I can't really speak to its reliability, but it looks like a reference that is entirely online and free of charge. It's probably harmless and could be a good reference. l'aquatique [talk]  02:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearly WP:REFSPAM.
 * domain aspnetbook.com
 * created 19-Dec-2010
 * The beginning of the spam campaign began 2 January 2011, Just a little over a week after the domains creation. Has not stopped since. --Hu12 (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. If this SEO'ing continues, Local blacklisting should be considered...--Hu12 (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't add it to the right revertlist - the main revertlist explicitly ignores references and hence won't stop the spam. You want User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. MER-C 02:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks MER-C, fixed that..--Hu12 (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear wikipedians, i got some complains from some users of my website that my domain aspnetbook.com has been reported as REFSPAM. What is the reason for this? I am 100% sure the contributions i made were not spams, and I would like to know a good explanation as to why my contributions were disregarded? Does the wiki guidelines anywhere mention that the source domain should be older or some sort? I think this is an abuse of editorial power. The user Hu12 is abusing his power and has not even read through my contributions to wikipedia. If you read the comment from l'aquatique  above you would see that the references made are not of any harm to any copyright laws or cause any SEO. I would appreciate if you reconsider your allegations of spamming.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.102.49 (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatly, contrary to your statement, 100% of the evidence shows Reference spamming. Your contributions to wikipedia under multiple IP's consist entirely of adding links to YOUR site, aspnetbook.com and is considered SPAM. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT a "vehicle for advertising".
 * Despite the warnings, you continued to add links, including redirecting links (never a sign of good faith). aspnetbook.com was Created it on Dec 19 2010 and just a little over a week after, You began spamming it. The prima facie evidence still remains; you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting aspnetbook.com, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The beginning of the spam campaign began 2 January 2011, Just a little over a week after the domains creation. Has not stopped since. --Hu12 (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. If this SEO'ing continues, Local blacklisting should be considered...--Hu12 (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't add it to the right revertlist - the main revertlist explicitly ignores references and hence won't stop the spam. You want User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. MER-C 02:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks MER-C, fixed that..--Hu12 (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear wikipedians, i got some complains from some users of my website that my domain aspnetbook.com has been reported as REFSPAM. What is the reason for this? I am 100% sure the contributions i made were not spams, and I would like to know a good explanation as to why my contributions were disregarded? Does the wiki guidelines anywhere mention that the source domain should be older or some sort? I think this is an abuse of editorial power. The user Hu12 is abusing his power and has not even read through my contributions to wikipedia. If you read the comment from l'aquatique  above you would see that the references made are not of any harm to any copyright laws or cause any SEO. I would appreciate if you reconsider your allegations of spamming.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.102.49 (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatly, contrary to your statement, 100% of the evidence shows Reference spamming. Your contributions to wikipedia under multiple IP's consist entirely of adding links to YOUR site, aspnetbook.com and is considered SPAM. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT a "vehicle for advertising".
 * Despite the warnings, you continued to add links, including redirecting links (never a sign of good faith). aspnetbook.com was Created it on Dec 19 2010 and just a little over a week after, You began spamming it. The prima facie evidence still remains; you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting aspnetbook.com, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The beginning of the spam campaign began 2 January 2011, Just a little over a week after the domains creation. Has not stopped since. --Hu12 (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. If this SEO'ing continues, Local blacklisting should be considered...--Hu12 (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't add it to the right revertlist - the main revertlist explicitly ignores references and hence won't stop the spam. You want User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. MER-C 02:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks MER-C, fixed that..--Hu12 (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear wikipedians, i got some complains from some users of my website that my domain aspnetbook.com has been reported as REFSPAM. What is the reason for this? I am 100% sure the contributions i made were not spams, and I would like to know a good explanation as to why my contributions were disregarded? Does the wiki guidelines anywhere mention that the source domain should be older or some sort? I think this is an abuse of editorial power. The user Hu12 is abusing his power and has not even read through my contributions to wikipedia. If you read the comment from l'aquatique  above you would see that the references made are not of any harm to any copyright laws or cause any SEO. I would appreciate if you reconsider your allegations of spamming.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.102.49 (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatly, contrary to your statement, 100% of the evidence shows Reference spamming. Your contributions to wikipedia under multiple IP's consist entirely of adding links to YOUR site, aspnetbook.com and is considered SPAM. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT a "vehicle for advertising".
 * Despite the warnings, you continued to add links, including redirecting links (never a sign of good faith). aspnetbook.com was Created it on Dec 19 2010 and just a little over a week after, You began spamming it. The prima facie evidence still remains; you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting aspnetbook.com, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the warnings, you continued to add links, including redirecting links (never a sign of good faith). aspnetbook.com was Created it on Dec 19 2010 and just a little over a week after, You began spamming it. The prima facie evidence still remains; you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting aspnetbook.com, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the warnings, you continued to add links, including redirecting links (never a sign of good faith). aspnetbook.com was Created it on Dec 19 2010 and just a little over a week after, You began spamming it. The prima facie evidence still remains; you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting aspnetbook.com, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the warnings, you continued to add links, including redirecting links (never a sign of good faith). aspnetbook.com was Created it on Dec 19 2010 and just a little over a week after, You began spamming it. The prima facie evidence still remains; you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting aspnetbook.com, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the warnings, you continued to add links, including redirecting links (never a sign of good faith). aspnetbook.com was Created it on Dec 19 2010 and just a little over a week after, You began spamming it. The prima facie evidence still remains; you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting aspnetbook.com, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the warnings, you continued to add links, including redirecting links (never a sign of good faith). aspnetbook.com was Created it on Dec 19 2010 and just a little over a week after, You began spamming it. The prima facie evidence still remains; you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting aspnetbook.com, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the warnings, you continued to add links, including redirecting links (never a sign of good faith). aspnetbook.com was Created it on Dec 19 2010 and just a little over a week after, You began spamming it. The prima facie evidence still remains; you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting aspnetbook.com, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the warnings, you continued to add links, including redirecting links (never a sign of good faith). aspnetbook.com was Created it on Dec 19 2010 and just a little over a week after, You began spamming it. The prima facie evidence still remains; you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting aspnetbook.com, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the warnings, you continued to add links, including redirecting links (never a sign of good faith). aspnetbook.com was Created it on Dec 19 2010 and just a little over a week after, You began spamming it. The prima facie evidence still remains; you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting aspnetbook.com, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the warnings, you continued to add links, including redirecting links (never a sign of good faith). aspnetbook.com was Created it on Dec 19 2010 and just a little over a week after, You began spamming it. The prima facie evidence still remains; you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting aspnetbook.com, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the warnings, you continued to add links, including redirecting links (never a sign of good faith). aspnetbook.com was Created it on Dec 19 2010 and just a little over a week after, You began spamming it. The prima facie evidence still remains; you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting aspnetbook.com, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the warnings, you continued to add links, including redirecting links (never a sign of good faith). aspnetbook.com was Created it on Dec 19 2010 and just a little over a week after, You began spamming it. The prima facie evidence still remains; you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting aspnetbook.com, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the warnings, you continued to add links, including redirecting links (never a sign of good faith). aspnetbook.com was Created it on Dec 19 2010 and just a little over a week after, You began spamming it. The prima facie evidence still remains; you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting aspnetbook.com, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the warnings, you continued to add links, including redirecting links (never a sign of good faith). aspnetbook.com was Created it on Dec 19 2010 and just a little over a week after, You began spamming it. The prima facie evidence still remains; you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting aspnetbook.com, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the warnings, you continued to add links, including redirecting links (never a sign of good faith). aspnetbook.com was Created it on Dec 19 2010 and just a little over a week after, You began spamming it. The prima facie evidence still remains; you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting aspnetbook.com, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the warnings, you continued to add links, including redirecting links (never a sign of good faith). aspnetbook.com was Created it on Dec 19 2010 and just a little over a week after, You began spamming it. The prima facie evidence still remains; you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting aspnetbook.com, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the warnings, you continued to add links, including redirecting links (never a sign of good faith). aspnetbook.com was Created it on Dec 19 2010 and just a little over a week after, You began spamming it. The prima facie evidence still remains; you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting aspnetbook.com, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the warnings, you continued to add links, including redirecting links (never a sign of good faith). aspnetbook.com was Created it on Dec 19 2010 and just a little over a week after, You began spamming it. The prima facie evidence still remains; you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting aspnetbook.com, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the warnings, you continued to add links, including redirecting links (never a sign of good faith). aspnetbook.com was Created it on Dec 19 2010 and just a little over a week after, You began spamming it. The prima facie evidence still remains; you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting aspnetbook.com, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

'''So what should i do in order to get the link from the being blacklisted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.101.114 (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * also
 * has used link shorteners in past to subvert xlinkbot--Hu12 (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * has used link shorteners in past to subvert xlinkbot--Hu12 (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yiser Hosting and Website Design Services spam on Wikipedia



 * Spam pages
 * possibly
 * possibly
 * possibly


 * Sites spammed
 * blacklisted on en.wp, hi.wp
 * blacklisted on en.wp, hi.wp
 * blacklisted on en.wp, hi.wp
 * blacklisted on en.wp, hi.wp
 * blacklisted on en.wp, hi.wp
 * blacklisted on en.wp, hi.wp
 * blacklisted on en.wp, hi.wp
 * blacklisted on en.wp, hi.wp
 * blacklisted on en.wp, hi.wp
 * blacklisted on en.wp, hi.wp


 * Spammers

IPs are heavily shared. MER-C 12:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

anusthanokarehasya.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Again--Hu12 (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and again
 * BL'd✅--Hu12 (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * adding a soft redirect site
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Requesting delisting
 * Continuing adding soft redirect spam
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Vandalism, report blanking by;
 * WikiProject_Spam/Local/anusthanokarehasya.com
 * WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/baglamukhi.yolasite.com
 * WikiProject Spam/Local/baglamukhi.yolasite.com
 * --Hu12 (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * More Related
 * scribd.com/sumitgirdharwal
 * IP range
 * --Hu12 (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Spam/Local/baglamukhi.yolasite.com
 * --Hu12 (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * More Related
 * scribd.com/sumitgirdharwal
 * IP range
 * --Hu12 (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * IP range
 * --Hu12 (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * IP range
 * --Hu12 (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * IP range
 * --Hu12 (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * IP range
 * --Hu12 (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Ms&e card

 * User is canvassing for a survey that seems to be for a Wikipedia-related school project. What do folks here think? Regards, P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 13:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverted and/or deleted pages.



Not sure if this is such a useful site in general (on Wikipedia, I mean) - useless as a reference, and I am afraid also useless as an external link ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Outside the senario where there is a standalone article about a survey, links like this have no purpose anywhere on wikipedia. strange link count and placement --Hu12 (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

- Hello, Thank you for letting me know. We are a group from Stanford University. We met with Diederik, Howie, and Steve at the Wikimedia office in San Francisco a couple of weeks ago and discussed the idea of finding out why new editors join as a means to study overall editor retention. Please let me know if we can go ahead with the surveys. Thank you for your diligence in keeping Wikipedia clean! Ms&amp;e card (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT a "Vehicle for Surveys, Advocacy or recruitment".--Hu12 (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Constant spam at Latex and PVC fetishism
Someone is using multiple IP addresses (87.178.208.63, 87.152.237.110, 87.178.202.200, 87.152.254.101, etc.) to add his own blogspam to Latex and PVC fetishism. He has been adding the link daily since January 25th. The IPs all resolve to Germany and the blog is registered there. 99.135.14.131 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Accounts
 * Blocked ✅--Hu12 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked ✅--Hu12 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

SPA adding promo material to Cineplex Entertainment
This SPA has been racking up edits adding promotional material to over the past few weeks. The edits are unreferenced and read like a press release. I've reverted 'em and warned the editor, but they don't seem to be paying attention to their talk page. Given the nature of the edits, I'm concerned that this editor may be affiliated with the article subject and therefore have a conflict of interest. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Diffs:  // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Identical material is being added by multiple IPs now. I've posted a request at WP:RFP for temporary semiprotection. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Spamming adsense related
Adsense google_ad_client = pub-7083669820511164
 * Also spammed
 * Accounts
 * Also spammed
 * Accounts
 * Also spammed
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

rhlaw.com


Lawyer spam/refspam added to Piercing the corporate veil‎‎ and other articles, now cleaned out. --CliffC (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

minisubs.org



 * Spammers

minisubs.org/page5.php : "New Website Launch" - "7/2/2011 11:37:55 AM". MER-C 10:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

datingsites247.com



 * Spammers
 * Inline spammer, see
 * Inline spammer, see


 * Inline spammer, see
 * Inline spammer, see
 * Inline spammer, see



Redirects + excuse content to various affiliate links. MER-C 10:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional spammers
 * Inserting spam link on redirect page,
 * Inserting spam link on redirect page,

--bonadea contributions talk 15:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Spamming affiliate links found on datingsites247.com:




 * Blacklisted by Beetstra. MER-C 09:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Opinion on this editor's images?
Some recent images added by User:Delsiegrates have set off my (perhaps oversensitive) spam alarm. The images all seem to be sourced to commercial sites. The IMO poor-quality image added here to Acoustic guitar is sourced to http://www.34acousticguitar.net/3-4-acoustic-guitar-an-introduction/ As another example, this edit to Grants Pass, Oregon adds an IMO unneccessary photo of rental units sourced to http://www.riverwood-apartments.com/category/rentals-in-grant-pass/. An image of an "E-Z Grip Clamp" sourced to http://www.horsematting.org/5/horse-matting/ was added to both the dab page Clamp and to C-clamp. An unhelpful photo of "A man with back pain" sourced to http://www.backpainreliefreports.com/decompression-therapy/back-decompression/ was added to three articles dealing with the human back (I will be removing these three as not improving the target articles). --CliffC (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Image spam
 * File:Stall-mat.jpg
 * File:3-4-acoustic-guitar.jpg
 * File:Back-decompression.jpg
 * File:EZ-Grip-for-Horse-Matting.jpg
 * File:Rentals-Grants-Pass-OR.JPG
 * Registrant Organization:myown llc (Created On:07-Jun-2010 by Nat Pulsifier )
 * Pulsifer Investments LLC (Nat Pulsifier) google_ad_client = "pub-5679831051871480"
 * Registrant:  Nathaniel Pulsifer
 * Registrant Contact: myown llc (Nat  Pulsifier)
 * note; "myown llc" owns about74 other domains.
 * All are Nathaniel Pulsifer's "Internet marketing, website development, online sales".
 * Some form of seo/marketing... unencyclopedic--Hu12 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Related
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hm, that was a bigger rock than I expected. Thank you. CliffC (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

ibtimes.com


Each of this user's 38 edits since 2 February has involved a link to the site. They can be straight external links, text-free secondary citations added to existing cited statements, or short blurbs about current celebrities cited to the site, example here. We have right now 432 links to the ibtimes site and I'm sure many have value, but this user's edits seem to have the sole purpose of adding links, not keeping us up to date on celebrity activities and awards.

The article International Business Times is a bit troublesome also, with 20 or 30 inline links to various editions and sections. ( Now cleaned out, there were 31 ). --CliffC (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, WP won't let me save this because the site is blacklisted (good), but I found nothing about it in the archives when I came here, edit it out & try again... --CliffC (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oddly, I can save if prefixed 'au', as all 38 edits by this user seem to be:
 * --CliffC (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --CliffC (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The blacklisted expression is /ibtimes\.com, blacklisted globally, request is here. MER-C 09:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * shouldent the expression in the entry be \bibtimes\.com\b. wonder if that was intentional? was origionaly ... fat-thumbed? Seems the only blocking of the link is in the template  . ( http://www.ibtimes.com ) perhaps a new report should be made and the regex corrected?--Hu12 (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't COIBot poke this link because of the blacklisting, either at User:COIBot/Poke or IRC. MER-C 07:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

andamanbeacon.com
Google Analytics UA-20920491

also spammed, but some time ago and probably unrelated:


 * Spammers

MER-C 08:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

SpamBlog the drone

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

All WP:SPA accounts. Site is Excessivly slow to load and fails WP:RS, WP:SOCK and WP:EL. Clément Mathon (Cmathon) = COI.


 * Timestamp. MER-C 07:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OOps, forgot to sign... ;)--Hu12 (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

howticle.com

 * google_ad_client = pub-1706457511606271
 * created on 2010/8/31 Registrant: Remzi Kaya
 * created on 2010/8/31 Registrant: Remzi Kaya


 * accts


 * X-wiki
 * http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribuciones/217.174.46.174
 * http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Contributi/217.174.46.174
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.174.46.174
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/78.179.189.7
 * http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/78.179.189.7
 * http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribui%C3%A7%C3%B5es/88.242.149.207
 * http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribui%C3%A7%C3%B5es/88.242.113.19
 * http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F:Contributions/88.242.113.19
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/88.242.113.19
 * http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/88.242.113.19

--Hu12 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * continued along with another Remzi owned site
 * google_ad_client = pub-2831468215500175
 * created on 2011/1/19 Registrant: Remzi
 * --Hu12 (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

buildingexamples.com
Adsense pub-2913485666024560




 * Spammers
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see

MER-C 12:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Blogspot Farmer

 * pranav patel


 * Adsense google_ad_client = pub-1820297831807198
 * Meta BL'd
 * Meta BL'd
 * Meta BL'd


 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

REFSPAM of Hosting Industry Watch
Adsense google_ad_client = pub-5420471946675830
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sporting Index Ltd Spam



 * Previous
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2009_Archive_Oct_1
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Apr_2
 * Article Spam


 * Deletion log
 * 18:16, 30 October 2009 deleted "Sporting Index" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
 * 05:49, 25 April 2008 deleted "Sporting Index" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising: WP:SPAM)
 * 22:21, 10 May 2007 deleted "Sporting Index" ‎ (content was: 'db-copyvio|.')
 * Articles for deletion/Sporting Index
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

absolutechinatours.com

 * blacklisted on en.wp, ar.wp, hi.wp
 * blacklisted on en.wp, ar.wp, hi.wp
 * blacklisted on en.wp, ar.wp, hi.wp


 * Related domains


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


 * Possibly
 * Possibly
 * Possibly
 * Possibly
 * Possibly
 * Possibly
 * Possibly


 * See also
 * Whitelisting request

MER-C 02:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Democracynow.org
is spamming political links to Democracy Now! in external links sections in violation of WP:ELNO. THF (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I dispute this accusation, and would ask User:THF to provide some actual evidence of just how these videos on the topics of the articles in question violate WP:ELNO. 90 % of the time when I utilize a video report or interview from Democracy Now!, the person who the article is about is literally interviewed in the video link added. On other occasions, they are the subject of the video interview in question. Red thoreau  -- (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is one example of what THF insists is (and has reverted) as irrelevant WP:SPAM. The article I added the DN! link to was Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants and here is he link I added ---> "The Full Story Behind the Case and How Corporations Used it to Promote Tort Reform? - video report by Democracy Now!". I would challenge THF to provide actual evidence (instead of just throwing around acronyms to Wiki policies as he has shown he is prone to do) of just how a link used in this manner would violate Wiki policy? If he can not, then I would ask that THF immediately desist with this offensive accusation and stop edit-warring with me over it. In fact I could argue that he is much closer to violating WP:HOUND at this point, than I am WP:SPAM. Red thoreau  -- (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is another example of what THF insists is spam. The article I added the DN! link to was Black Power and here is he link I added ---> "The Black Power Mixtape – New Documentary Featuring Angela Davis, Huey P. Newton, & Stokely Carmichael - video report by Democracy Now!". I would love to know how the recent discovery of rare archival footage and thus a 30 minute video report by DN! on a new documentary on the Black Power movement, is not relevant to the article on Black Power? The fact that THF has the chutzpah to nominate me here on this page with 1 day old account IP trolls proverbially spamming their own myspace pages - is insulting. I am adding video report links from a highly reputable independent news source, who provide information and specialized content on subjects that are commonly ignored (or intentionally censored) by the larger corporate media. Red thoreau  -- (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Violates ELNO 1, 2, 8, and 13. Also violates WP:ELPOV. Redthoreau's complaint that he is adding content that is "commonly ignored by the media" demonstrates that it also violates WP:FRINGE and that he is editing in violation of WP:BATTLE. THF (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * THF - haha, that is ridiculous. It is not enough to just spout off numbers and attempt to WP:wikilawyer, without justifying just how these stipulations are being violated - see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Moreover, DN! is not a WP:Fringe source (although you are welcome to challenge that in an rfc if you believe the majority would agree with you). My statement that it deals with content that is “commonly ignored” deals not with the fact that their content is "WP:Fringe", but that they are often times the only news source even reporting about an important international story in the U.S. see WP:CSB (as their non-commercial format allows them to cover "boring" global material in an English format - without concern for chasing tabloid-esque "ratings"). They often times feature interviews with ex-presidents, prime ministers, leading intellectuals, dissidents, academic authors, etc and because of their format can feature 30 minute interviews (unlike your usual cable news show, which instead attempts to squeeze information into 6 minute segments with the latest "reality news" tv star). You have shown yourself to be highly unreasonable, and thus I have lost my initial WP:good faith that I can deal with you in an objective or rational manner. Lastly, you should get WP:Consensus here on this page before continuing to edit WP:WAR. Red thoreau  -- (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, there's a lot of breath being expended here. Ok, as it happens I regularly watch DN and have seen the episode regarding Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. It's an interview with Liebeck's daughter and some info about Hot Coffee, the documentary about the incident. I would say that in terms of WP:ELNO, I believe mentioned about was 1, 2, 8, 13. It doesn't violate 1 to me, as per 2 the interview with Liebeck is a firsthand account so don't know why it would go against 2 there, as per 8 when you click on the page there is several formats available (flash/real/mp3/transcript) so I have no clue why that's there, and for 13 if it was the whole episode I'd say no but this is just a segment. I'd vote keep, and looking at Redthoreau's contribs, I'd say it's in good faith and not spam. Now I noticed some persistent reverting here, if you really want to discuss this in-depth regarding the validity/reliability of the source use Talk:Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. JoeSmack Talk 00:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Neither the documentary nor the interview is neutral; they're one-sided promotion of a special-interest group's view of the litigation. It thus violates WP:ELPOV. THF (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * THF, as fun as it is to watch you chase your tail and fling acronyms against the wall like it was wet spaghetti - it really would be best if you gave it a rest. Now admittedly DN! is not the paragon of "objective virtue" that you apparently think National Review Online is --> link, but it is a notable and reliable news source providing an acceptable and non-fringe interpretation of our daily World events. I am sorry that you resent them, but you are not justified in trying to censor them or remove them from Wikipedia. Not to worry though, you'll still have plenty of your other pov-projects to work on :o) Red thoreau  -- (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think the sarcasm helps Redthoreau. THF, honestly I think it's about as bad as FOX News on the other end of the spectrum. Fox still counts, so, *shrug*. It's a discussion for other pages. If you want, let me know where you put it and i'll comment further. JoeSmack Talk 13:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I would move to have an Admin close this politically-driven and absurd nomination (with no corroborating support), so that I can get back to the work of the actual encyclopedia. Red <font color="#FCC200">thoreau -- (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hold on, please. Can someone please explain why these links are suitable as ELs instead of being used as references for material that should be added to the articles?  I think WP:NOTDIR needs to be addressed. ElKevbo (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ElKevbo, it depends on the particular link or article. Sometimes a link to a 30 minute video report is more valuable as an EL than as an inline citation. Other times people will watch the video and insert it later into the text. However, this is a forum for discussion on "spamming" allegations, which this clearly is not. The placement of various links on articles can be discussed on those specific article talk pages. <font color="#FF3333">Red <font color="#FCC200">thoreau  -- (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we're all entitled to come to our own conclusions about whether this activity is spamming so please don't tell us your opinion as if it is fact. It's not helpful to the discussion and it's quite off-putting and disrespectful. ElKevbo (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think references are better than external links, but they have more stringent policy. This isn't the most outlandish external link proposal I have ever seen, and I don't feel like this is so much spamming activity. Once again, I would motion to bring this to the article's talk page to discuss the link's relation/merit. JoeSmack Talk 23:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The videos have been spammed to multiple External Links sections in violation of WP:NOTDIR; there seems to be a coordinated meat-puppet campaign to add Democracy Now videos to Wikipedia. They're admittedly fringe views that wouldn't even be appropriately included as in-line citations because of RS problems. They violate ELPOV and NOTDIR, and it's appropriate to discuss them en masse. Redthoreau's attempt to change the subject doesn't change that. THF (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * THF, there is a separate avenue available (not this one) if you would like to have Democracy Now! deemed WP:Fringe and inadmissible (other partisan-driven hacks have tried and failed before you, but you’re welcome to give it a whirl). Moreover, put away the tin foil hat as there is no "meat-puppet" conspiracy here – (if anything I take offense at the insinuation). You continually violate all sorts of Wiki-civility guidelines, so I am done trying to reason with you on this matter. <font color="#FF3333">Red <font color="#FCC200">thoreau  -- (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You're the one edit-warring to add inappropriate partisan content -- and you violate WP:CIVIL by calling me a "partisan-driven hack"? The meat-puppet allegation is based on the fact that I've seen multiple editors who've never contributed to articles before add inappropriate democracynow links to multiple articles on my watchlist that managed to survive Wikipedia for the last several years without any links to this non-RS.  And you have yet to defend those additions by reference to the relevant Wikipedia policies: instead you've spent this entire page attacking me and the mainstream media.  By your own admission, this stuff is fringe and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. THF (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * THF, I have never admitted that it is "fringe", so stop putting words in my mouth. Fringe implies inaccuracy, or that the conclusions are outside of the mainstream – DN! is not – they simply cover topics in an English video format that are not usually covered through that medium. You continually keep parroting the "fringe" accusation (after all of your other acronyms failed - see WP:Game) without one single example of just what makes their show, format, or coverage so. I get it, you are a far-right conservative who doesn’t like anything to the left of National Review, that is your prerogative, and Wiki benefits from having an array of views and perspectives – but don’t expect the entire project to subscribe to your ideological point of view. Now if all you have are the same baseless accusations without evidence, then I would suggest you give it a rest and stop wasting both of our time. <font color="#FF3333">Red <font color="#FCC200">thoreau  -- (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

How many democracynow links have been added in, say, the past two weeks? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, if you mean by me personally - the answer from my count is 14. The daily 1 hour show is usually split into several segments (3-5) and usually on average about 1 of those per day I find relevant to a particular article. Today for instance, I included 3 of those 14, which 2 were video interviews with journalists on the ongoing uprising in Egypt on their individual pages see 1 & 2. Now whether including a video interview with a journalist on their personal article is spam - I guess is up to interpretation - but I don't believe it fits the modus operandi of this page, which is mostly 1 day old IP's spamming their own website etc - not veteran editors making good faith additions of material that they sincerely believe further enhances a readers understanding of various articles. P.S. for the record, I also have no affiliation with DN! and don’t benefit in anyway from their additions. I am just a daily watcher of the show who finds that a good deal of their content is potentially beneficial to the mission of Wikipedia and covers topics that are not usually examined in English or in a video format (as most of the material they cover is usually only reserved for foreign policy annals or academic political journals.) <font color="#FF3333">Red <font color="#FCC200">thoreau  -- (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you think you will continue adding 1 link per day from this website? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, I’m not sure. My additions are based on their video reports having direct relevancy to a specific Wiki article. If I find and watch a video report that is relevant to an article then I usually include it. However, I don’t have a specific quota that I am going for, nor a set duration of time that I committed to watching the show daily as I do now. <font color="#FF3333">Red <font color="#FCC200">thoreau  -- (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, look at it this way; if you continued doing this for, say, a year, then you'd have 365 external links to this site. Someone who did that all in one day would be blocked almost immediately. The gradual nature of these additions makes them appear less disruptive, but in the end it's still fairly obviously a violation of WP:LINKSPAM. Whether or not it is your intent do so, this is clearly promoting a website by adding many links to it. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, at WP:Linkspam it states: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." However, my goal in adding these external links is not to promote DN! or sell a product. I have no affiliation with DN!, and the videos that they feature do not solicit money, or sell products etc. For instance, some news video clips for CNN etc feature short 30 second ads before the official clip plays (but DN! does not even do this) as they are independent and receive no advertising, sponsorship, or corporate funding. Moreover, this page is not for preemptively stopping spam under the hypothetical that one could post a link a day for a year, and the original complaint by THF was over a few clips that I posted to what he deems a "propaganda" outfit. THF has made his real argument fairly transparent, that his real issue is not with "spamming", but with the fact that because of his ideological point of view, he believes DN! is "fringe" and thus inadmissible in every circumstance (spam or not). That to me seems like an argument for the external link page or another forum, not for this page which is for ip addresses spamming pages to their own products, personal sites etc. The only real issue to be decided in this forum is whether posting the several links mentioned constitutes "spamming", if it does not then the thread should be closed. <font color="#FF3333">Red <font color="#FCC200">thoreau  -- (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Redthoreau, I haven't stated or implied that you have any affiliation with the website, or that the clips solicit money etc. However, WP:LINKSPAM requires neither of these to qualify as link-spam. Also, I don't have any knowledge of or opinion about the website's political views, which is one reason I haven't mentioned them. Rather, I've pointed out that if an editor did what you were doing all at once, rather than one link per day, the account would almost certainly be immediately blocked for link-spamming, even it if were just 14 links. Slow-motion link-spamming is less obvious, but it doesn't change the nature of what is being done. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 07:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, I guess the issue then becomes = can there be "slow motion" link adding that is not "link spamming". For instance, if John X read CNN every day and hence included a different CNN report as a reference or external link on average about once a day – would John be "link spamming"? If CNN is considered a RS, then what would be the problem with utilizing them daily as a reference or EL? In my view, the issue is not the additions, nor even the number of additions, but the rationale behind them and what can possibly gained by their inclusion (potential commercial gain in my view would have a much lower threshold and deserve more scrutiny). You seem to be implying that there is a threshold of how much an editor can use a particular source, and that at some numerically equivalent point - accepted use becomes "overuse" and thus "spam". What I would be curious of is at what point that becomes the case, and if there is any Wiki policy that addresses such an action – (as in my view WP:Linkspam does not). <font color="#FF3333">Red <font color="#FCC200">thoreau  -- (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * While there's no bright-line rule for establishing exactly when adding links from a single source crosses the line to spamming, I have no doubt that if an editor, for example, added 365 external links to Fox News articles, particularly in a brief period of time, that editor would be blocked for spamming. Would it happen if they added "only" 14 links? That's not completely clear, but at some number they would. One Wikipedia goal is to actually eliminate all external links; our articles should contain all relevant, reliably sourced, notable information, not suggest readers go elsewhere to read/learn about the topic. Rather than adding more external links, you should consider whether or not the material itself would be appropriate to add to the articles in question - that is, would it comply with WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. This has been alluded to by others commenting above. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Redthoreau, I see that even as we were discussing this, you continued to add more links to the website. I don't see this as a good faith action. Please stop now, so we don't have to go to more administrative means of dealing with the issue. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, since I don’t believe that these links constitute "spam", but help readers understand various topics – then yes, I have continued sparingly using them. Moreover, the only overt objection has come from THF who has shown he is motivated by political bias instead of Wiki policy. If I don’t believe I am doing anything wrong, and if there is no judgment by this board or the community that I am violating policy – then why would I alter my actions just because THF has a pov-driven case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? I believe this “case” has been open for a reasonable length of time and that matters like this should not remain under review in perpetuity (or until THF finally has an ideological ally who hates the site as well, wade through and join his cause). <font color="#FF3333">Red <font color="#FCC200">thoreau  -- (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There has been "judgment by this board" that you are violating policy. I'm not THF, and I've told you what you're doing is inappropriate, and that you should stop. Please don't do it any more. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, did I miss your recent election as sole arbiter for Wikipedia? And when did this “judgment” occur? All I see above is THF’s various objections, User:JoeSmack sort of coming to my defense, and a subsequent still open discussion between you and I on the matter. Did I miss some sort of consensus or definitive policy that shows inclusion of these links is inappropriate? Should I understand your comment to imply that you believe you have the sole authority alone to determine what is “spam” and then “command” me not to include any links from this website ever again on Wikipedia? If so, that would surely be a new development in how the site is run. As far as I know this site has not been banned as a reference or external link on Wikipedia – and until/unless it is – then utilizing it when appropriate would be within any editor’s discretion (including my own). Obviously, each addition made is open to be reverted on an individual basis (on the merits of that particular addition to that particular article) but I haven’t seen anything here to prevent all use of Democracy Now! on Wikipedia by myself or anyone else. Moreover, if it is not a reliable source – then the place to challenge that would not be the “spam” board. <font color="#FF3333">Red <font color="#FCC200">thoreau  -- (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Redthoreau, unlike THF and you, I have no dog in this fight. The only explicit view expressed on this board by uninvolved parties is that the practice is unacceptable. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * After reading this quite lengthy debate, I have to agree with Jayjg on this one. Even if you have no material incentive for posting the links (which I will assume is the truth), the external links do not add to the overall clarity of the articles. If every wikipedia user added a link or two to a relevant page each day, articles would become quite cluttered with them. Thus, to keep things relevant and clear, I believe that users should refrain from posting several external links. If the videos contain pertinent info on the article's topic, consider adding that information and citing the video in the footnote. Alexpolino (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, I guess we have a different interpretation of the matter then, because according to my reading of the above – Joesmack did not agree with THF’s initial conclusions – and even you seemed to be making hypotheticals while discussing the matter – without making a definitive "ruling". Thus, I didn’t view a vague 1-1 decision as WP:Consensus. Luckily for you though, it seems that after leaving this thread up for almost 3 weeks – the red-linked Alexpolino has chimed in above with his 6th overall post ever on Wikipedia to agree with you. Now although 2-1 isn’t a definitive majority – it at least is one, and barring any further chiming in from those supporting my position – I will respect it (although I would reserve the right to still use DN! as an inline citation if appropriate, but not as an EL).  <font color="#FF3333">Red <font color="#FCC200">thoreau  -- (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

One needs to look at this holistically: the problem here is WP:NOTDIR. I can add hundreds of EL to reason.tv (which would have the side benefit of promoting NPOV, since that notable point of view is absent from numerous articles), but I don't: if everybody adds their favorite web videos to every page, we run into problems. Redthoreau doesn't get special exemption for his favorite video: on the Stella Liebeck article alone, I can identify a dozen external links more appropriate, accurate, and neutral than the democracynow.org propaganda, which would then inappropriately clutter up the page. Simply put, democracynow.org is only reliable for Democracy Now's POV, which is admittedly fringe since, in Redthoreau's own words, they focus on "subjects that are commonly ignored (or intentionally censored) by the larger corporate media." WP:TRUTH is a very bad motivation for adding external links. Redthoreau needs to stop violating WP:BATTLE and needs to stop edit-warring to include these inappropriate links. THF (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * THF, your argument pathetically changes with every post and continually shifts as you desperately hope that one of these acronyms that you throw out there sticks. WP:NOTDIR has no relevance to this debate, and I am seriously starting to wonder if you even read the policies that you cite – or if you just like to play virtual WP:Wikilawyer and throw out acronyms like this was a courtroom. As for Reason TV, if you believe that they have videos that could be of value to specific wiki articles then you are welcome to attempt to add them and see if they’re rejected by editors on those particular articles. For instance, if a particular conservative/libertarian journalist does an interview on Reason TV, I could see a video link to his/her interview being highly relevant for inclusion on that journalist’s particular wiki article. However, whether or not they stayed, would be a matter of WP:OTHERCRAP and not really be relevant to this discussion. Lastly, as for your comically hyperbolic denunciation of DN! as "propaganda" – it is clear that you are the one that views this as a WP:Battle, unlike myself. I believe there is a place on Wiki for your right-wing views as well as views from the left-wing and center. You are the only one here who views this as an ideological zero sum game – and who can’t seem to separate your own personal beliefs – from your edits and behavior on Wiki. <font color="#FF3333">Red <font color="#FCC200">thoreau  -- (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Computer simulation
Two promotional links were added in this edit, but removed. A discussion at ELN was mildly deprecatory of the contribution, but not conclusive. Briefly reinstated, with the contributor's comment: "...People who do not know what a computer simulation is probably would not hire us...". The fact that the spam may not be particularly successful spam isn't, IMO, a sufficient reason to allow it to remain. Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The second link was removed. Previous discussion. The fact that the spam may not be particularly successful means there is no promotion behind it and therefore its not spam by definition. 79.178.2.247 (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's right. Spam is about promotional intent, which is clear in this case. (Another obvious sign is that the edit adds two external links when one would suffice.) MER-C 10:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (Creation date: 22 Jul 2010)
 * See also - Talk:Computer_simulation
 * See also - External_links/Noticeboard
 * See also - User_talk:Old_Moonraker
 * Accounts
 * It is quite evident that the contributions to Wikipedia are in order to promote avtechscientific.com. Few people will edit tendentiously or argue ad nauseum topics in which they have no connection. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests. --Hu12 (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sunbizar Technologies spam on Wikipedia

 * revertlisted
 * revertlisted


 * Sites spammed


 * Other clients
 * others at sunbizar-technologies.com/clients.html
 * others at sunbizar-technologies.com/clients.html
 * others at sunbizar-technologies.com/clients.html
 * others at sunbizar-technologies.com/clients.html
 * others at sunbizar-technologies.com/clients.html
 * others at sunbizar-technologies.com/clients.html
 * others at sunbizar-technologies.com/clients.html


 * Spammers
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see
 * I believe the local block reason is incorrect here.
 * I believe the local block reason is incorrect here.


 * Spammer replaced existing citations
 * Spammer replaced existing citations
 * Spammer replaced existing citations


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Inline spammer, see
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Inline spammer, see
 * Inline spammer, see


 * Inline spammer, see
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Inline spammer, see
 * Spammer replaced existing links

I note some of the other clients appear to have been blacklisted from google... spammed clients only. MER-C 10:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

sightseebyspace.com
A lot of different users lately have been adding this site to pages on the project. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note, that the users are new and they pop up on new accounts to add the links. I am not all that familiar in this action so updates on this will be slow for now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The user was using proxies and/or new accounts to add these links. Their edit summaries were always "SBS0211". → ♠ Gƒoley ↔ <font color="maroon" face="Papyrus">Four ♣ ← 06:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Google Analytics UA-399911


 * Related domains


 * Spammers

Excluding recycling domains for now. MER-C 07:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

SM Supermalls and Cebu franchises


These (and several other similar articles) about a chain of shopping malls is seeing frequent unreferenced addition of promotionally-toned content such as lists of vendors and inflation of the number of stores by a range of IP's. VQuakr (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

wordpress review spam

 * links


 * accounts

SPA account engaged in link hi-jacking, edit warring, and spamming of wordpress review sites that are non-notable and have no indication of being an authority in fields. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

bmigaming.com
--CliffC (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Spammy links now cleaned up. --CliffC (talk)

Long-running Adsense linkspam

 * Adsense id
 * Adsense id = 2896678111315197
 * links
 * accounts
 * accounts
 * accounts
 * accounts
 * accounts
 * accounts

Ongoing addition of links by multiple SPA accounts (at least one indef blocked for spamming), dating back to at least Dec 2009. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

picdix.com

 * Cross-wiki linksearch
 * Cross-wiki linksearch


 * Spammers
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/78.43.120.109
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/78.43.120.109


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/88.64.214.254
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/88.64.214.254


 * Spammed on German Wikipedia, see de:Special:Contributions/88.64.53.218
 * Spammed on German Wikipedia, see de:Special:Contributions/88.64.53.218


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/193.187.211.146
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/193.187.211.146
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/193.187.211.146
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/193.187.211.146


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/213.150.228.38
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/213.150.228.38

MER-C 07:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Photo essay spammer is back
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Feb

New IP edited today, 4 years later:

He also spammed de.Wikipedia, which was reverted. I've cleaned up the mess on en, but I'd like to have a record of this here. Valfontis (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * de:Special:Contributions/71.32.124.172
 * --Hu12 (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Replacement for Eagle's cross-wiki linksearch tool
URL: http://wikipediatools.appspot.com/linksearch.jsp, example:. The source code is hosted here. Let me know if there are any problems or if you would like any other tools. Bear in mind that this runs on Google App Engine, which is subject to these limitations and has no connection to the LinkWatcher database.

Can someone add this to LinkSummaryLive and friends? Thanks. MER-C 06:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Added it to both. FYI "LinkSummaryLive" is currently unprotected if the code needs fixin'.--Hu12 (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * MER-C: Thank you for making this available ... the work-around I had been using were not as efficient as this tool. --- Barek (talk) - 18:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Spam link

 * redirects to dcmcm.com
 * redirects to dcmcm.com
 * redirects to dcmcm.com

Spammers


IPs have been blocked via WP:AIV, incident also under discussion at WP:ANI. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)



And this user too (also blocked). - David Biddulph (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Knew I forgot one...thanks. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Some old stuff:
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/85.180.3.165
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see it:Special:Contributions/85.180.11.70
 * MER-C 09:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see it:Special:Contributions/85.180.11.70
 * MER-C 09:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * MER-C 09:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

autopalonline.com



 * Spammers
 * Inline spammer, see
 * http://www.ksl.com/jobs/listing/14653/14 : "Company Name: Autopal Software" ... "Contact: Rhett Roberts"
 * http://www.ksl.com/jobs/listing/14653/14 : "Company Name: Autopal Software" ... "Contact: Rhett Roberts"



MER-C 13:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

headwaysolar.com

 * Spam pages
 * deleted 3 times


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 02:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated. MER-C 08:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

ibdb.com - Anyone have time to investigate this?


Anyone have time to look at this link? 9,653 links total. There are a few dozen links to the main www.ibdb.com url, which indicates inexperienced editors if not spammers. Looks like it's being used as a source a great deal as well. I'd assume it should very rarely be used as a ref, but would be fine as an external link to pages within the database. --Ronz (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Opera recordings
This SPA is solely adding material relating to the output of a single record company. <font color="#FF2400">almost -<font color="#007FFF">instinct 23:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I reverted a couple of these as WP:PROMOTION and warned the user (the first warning they've had). On 18 February someone created Dynamic (record label); is now very busy adding blue links to it.  --CliffC (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Who's we? MER-C 06:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Who's we? MER-C 06:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I shall bring this conversation to the attention of the Opera Wikiproject, as someone there will be better able to assess the notability of this record label and the various recordings <font color="#FF2400">almost -<font color="#007FFF">instinct 12:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume "We" refers to Operajumper and Operawalker, and in a larger sense Dynamic as they are clearly connected to the record company. Operajumper created the article for the company originally under the article title "DYNAMIC" and it looked like this when I found it. I re-wrote and referenced it and moved it to Dynamic (record label). Annoying as the original mess article was, this is actually (now) a useful article. This is a very well known record label, particularly in Italy but also elsewhere. They specialise in rarely recorded operas and have made several world premiere recordings (both cd and dvd) and have received several awards. Read the currrent article and you'll see what I mean. The later spamming by Operawalker has also been very annoying, as he/she doesn't pipe the links and was creating loads of inappropriate red links too. Having said that, I have re-added the two recordings that were removed because they are valuable additions to articles which had no recordings listed at all. Personally, I would leave the others too, but the two editors should be cautioned about WP:COI and spamming. Voceditenore (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't currently follow any opera articles, so I may be overlooking something in the following comments. Voceditenore says that the two edits I reverted as promotional had no recordings listed at all, but I chose these edits and  deliberately, because they appeared quite spammy.  They dropped highly detailed blurbs (including Dynamic catalog numbers) at the top of "Recordings" sections that before consisted of a single link to an existing discography; these existing links were:
 * Source: Recordings of Bianca e Falliero on operadis-opera-discography.org.uk
 * Source: Recordings of La gazza ladra on operadis-opera-discography.org.uk
 * Other edits look spammy, although perhaps it's just due to a lack of consideration for the appearance of the end result. An example: while otherwise paralleling the eight existing entries in the "Video" section of The Barber of Seville discography, this edit links Dynamic (record label), links the theater of performance La Fenice, and includes the work's catalog number, 33597.  End result, this entry has undue weight, as no others include blue links or catalog numbers.  Assuming Dynamic passes the test for notability and these edits remain, they need thoughtful copyediting and trimming by experienced editors. --CliffC (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do need work, but the simple external link to a source is not helpful to the reader and actually shouldn't be sole the contents of a section. Over the months, I've been gradually try to repair these instances which were added by another editor. I'm afraid the recordings sections in most opera-related articles do not have a completely unified style, although many of them have now been converted to table format. But full catalogue number, if known, is customary and preferred, as is a link to the label if it has an article. See La bohème discography, La forza del destino, Dinorah, and Ricciardo e Zoraide for example. Voceditenore (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also the video section on The Barber of Seville discography, is particularly badly formatted seems to have just been plunked there. If you look higher up at the CDs, they are all wikified and include cat number. Note also that the editor did not add it at the top of the video list but in chronological order. Voceditenore (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

help please
My site www.comedyseries.info was listed on WikiProject_Spam because of the links placed on some pages of Wikipedia, but since I have no idea what it means could someone answer my questions:

1. if my site is listed on WikiProject_Spam does it mean that it was marked as a spam by users or robots?

2. since I've removed all my links does it mean my site will be removed from WikiProject_Spam?

3. if answer to question 2 is "no" what can or should I do to remove my site from WikiProject_Spam?

Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.131.74 (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)




 * 1) WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/comedyseries.info - "This is an automated report generated by COIBot." The monitor reason is you are the only person who added the link, this is bot identified.
 * 2) We can (but I can't) delete the reports on the understanding that you will not add further links to this site per the conflict of interest guidelines. (If you do, there will be consequences.)
 * 3) Even if the report isn't deleted, it will be forgotten about in short order if no further additions of links to this site occur. MER-C 13:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

inogolo.com


Google-ads site that has been spammed by SPAs and IPs for years. I just noticed it myself recently. Any objections to mass removal of it? OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Naomiger
...Modernist (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SPA used to add website despite numerous warnings...Modernist (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)



See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Jun 1. MER-C 13:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)