Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2011 Archive Jan 1

raregroove2mp3.com

 * Yworo (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Despite being repeatedly told that we cannot link to this commercial site which sells MP3s, user persists in returning the link to the article rare groove. She has received progressive warnings up to level4 on the last insertion. She apparently needs to hear from editors other than myself that the link is not appropriate or she will end up blocked. Yworo (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I placed a suggested external link on the rare groove discussion page. I was reverted and blocked for edit warring with Yworo when I attempted to reinstate the external link.  On this same day, 22 December, Yworo listed me here for spam - my user name and an article I am working on, postmodern religion, have 'links to wikispam' - why is my user name and my article for postmodern religion being listed here on wiki spam? This article, postmodern religion has no external links so I am not sure how the comments below are relevant or valid. --Kary247 (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion page where potential issues can be logged and/or discussed. Being listed here doesn't mean it is spam, only that someone thought the link additions were problematic and that they may need further research and/or discussion.  From what I can see, the statements are correct, so not sure what the issue is here. --- Barek (talk) - 23:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Kary247 used Wicca Magazine in several articles and Wicca Market briefly. The .com urls were just registered 14 Dec and they're already page 1 on Google for, which is now a redirect to Postmodern religion. They all have the same content she created the PW article with.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain as to the issue you are identifying; it appears they were removed from the identified article at least a couple days prior to the report here; are they being re-applied inappropriately to other articles? If you are questioning their use as reliable sources, then it should be discussed at WP:RS, if you feel their is spamming activity going on, I'm not seeing anything actively happening at the time of the report.
 * As to where the page ranks on Google is irrelevant - Google isn't Wikipedia, how they index their site and cache pages are not our concern. --- Barek (talk) - 23:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * References were previously removed from Postmodern Wicca, Postmodern Neopaganism (now redirects), and from Wicca prior to that... However, Kary247 removed two references (not EL) to wiccamagazine.com on 22-Dec at 17:57 and 17:58 from Postmodern religion. There are currently no refs or EL to any of the user's urls (that that I'm aware of) and wiccacovens.com hasn't been used at all on WP. Having noticed the user's history at Lifestyle entrepreneur, and because there was a lot of indirection, (including inserting the refs/ELs in the various articles), immediately following my post on Talk:Wicca where I called attention to the inappropriate RS/EL and invited a response from Kary247 regarding either COPYVIO or acknowledging ownership of the urls, (in a non-confrontational way)... I posted here in support of the four SPAM warnings re: raregroove2mp3.com, and because the user fails to acknowledge that they need to adjust their own behavior. I mentioned google only because Kary247's article(s) were directly responsible for driving interest in a virtually non-existent search term. (Originally, there were only 8 hits). I'd certainly bring the issue to the RS noticeboard if the links are reinserted, but they do say "Wicca Market" at the top and considering the .coms were created 14-Dec, (wiccamarket.co.uk no longer responds), the refs seemed plausibly SPAM related as well.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The three live domains all share the same ip, and there's a very likely coi between Kary247 and at least raregroove2mp3.com. --Ronz (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We could add lifestyleurs.com to the list as another inappropriate link added by Kary247 that shares the same ip as the others. --Ronz (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Just getting back to the point, which is that I listed the rare groove link on the discussion board, spoke to the editor and then wrote a consensus on the page, so I am not sure why the editor has placed a discussion here about this link when a consensus has been reached.
 * Again, postmodern religion has no external links, and as far as I am aware never has so I not sure how any of the information above is relevant.
 * The article I am working on at the moment, entrepreneur, has external links, but the ones I have listed here are from sources like Harvard, Yale and so on. --Kary247 (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You are evading the question, do you own or are you otherwise involved with these domains? The only way this issue is going away is if you fess up and agree never to place links to your own domains again. And by the way, might you also be affiliated with Muse Writing, which offers Internet marketing campaigns and Search Engine Optimization? We don't like Wikipedia being used for "campaigns", either for yourself or for clients. Yworo (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we're done with the spamming concerns. It was spamming, and the normal consequences should apply if it continues: blocking the editor and blacklisting the domains.
 * As to the WP:COI concerns, they should be discussed at WP:COIN. Kary247 doesn't have to disclose any personal information. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. Thanks for your suggestion. If the placing of links which seem to be associated with the editor continue, I will follow your suggestion and take it to WP:COIN. Yworo (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

--Kary247 (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They all seem to share a fairly common ip address which is worldescuresystems.com - as in adobe.com - this IP is the data centre for Europe. see adobe here.  In any case, I am glad this is resolved


 * Who says it is resolved? You? That bit about the IP address doesn't explain the domain registrations: wiccamarket.co.uk, raregroove2mp3.com, both registered to a Karen Smith of Chelmsford. Yworo (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not really sure what you are on about, however, I do believe that I don't need to disclose any personal information which I do believe you have already been told. Your attempts to get me to do so a fairly lame, and I won't acknowledge them, I would suggest that you build a bridge and move on, also I would suggest that listing my user name here when I clearly used the discussion page at rare groove to list the external link is a pretty lame way to resolve an edit war.--Kary247 (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You ignored four levels of warnings posted to your talk page, blanked them, and continued to add the link to the article. Discussion on the talk page assumes that you also stop adding the link to the article until the discussion reaches a conclusion. You didn't do that and that's why you got your user name listed here. That's our process, add a link one more time after a fourth level warning, and it gets reported. You did that, which implied that you were never going to stop, unless blocked. That's why it's listed here. Yworo (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * lame--Kary247 (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Refering to your own actions, I assume. Repeatly spamming an article after being informed multiple times that commercial links aren't allowed is one of the lamer things you've done. Yworo (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Umm I think I am being pretty clear - it is lame that I used the discussion board correctly to list the link and yet you listed my user name here and over at the blacklist on the 22 December. I was blocked from the 22 December to the 25th of December, which really resolved the issue, so listing my user name here before blocking me first is just lame.  Lame that you are repeatedly trying to encourage me to make personal statements online.  Build a bridge and move on because really, you were warned about edit warring also by an admin. and yet I was blocked.  Once blocked you ran here and listed my user name even though I used the discussion board correctly to list the external link--Kary247 (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Kary247, you accidentally reverted Yworo, possibly due to an edit conflict, so I've restored his changes.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The truth is, Kary247 "used the discussion board" as a result of Yworo's efforts to remove her spam and provide warnings. Not counting the other pages, she spammed Rare groove 5 times prior to her first post on the talk page. This page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, is the so-called "blacklist", and she got herself blocked for 3RR hours later. The block did not "resolve" anything, Kary247 continued to edit disruptively and sock regarding online music retail at Rare groove and she has not expressed her willingness to refrain from spamming and COI in the future. Her commercial music retail site says "Site by Pendragon's Web © 2010", which corresponds to the names of her husband's accounts: Special:Contributions/Pendragon111 and Special:Contributions/Pendragon's Web.
 * Kary247: 20:20, 30 November 2010 1st add EL (#1)
 * Kary247: 20:24, 30 November 2010 fix EL
 * Kary247: 07:22, 01 December 2010 1st add REF (#2)
 * Kary247: 01:46, 15 December 2010 .com EL
 * Kary247: 01:46, 15 December 2010 .com REF
 * Yworo:  19:10, 20 December 2010 1st rm REF+EL (rm links to commercial site, not a reliable souce)
 * Kary247: 11:18, 21 December 2010 2nd add REF (#3) (Sample rare groove digital collection)
 * Kary247: 11:19, 21 December 2010 fix REF (rare groove digital library)
 * Kary247: 11:19, 21 December 2010 hide REF (sample rare groove digital collection)
 * Kary247: 11:32, 21 December 2010 1st rm REF m (removed reference)
 * Kary247: 11:56, 21 December 2010 2nd add EL (#4) (added this as an example of the new digital formats now available - digital option as opposed to vinyl rare groove see article)
 * Kary247: 11:57, 21 December 2010 edit EL (rare groove in new MP3 digital format as an alternative option to vinyl records see article for reference)
 * Yworo:  16:44, 21 December 2010 2nd rm EL (this is spam, don't add it again (they SELL the MP3s))
 * Kary247: 18:21, 21 December 2010 3rd add REF (#5) (added citation and added example of a commercial mp3 rare groove library - digital formats/mp3)
 * Kary247: 18:23, 21 December 2010 edit REF (dded citation and added example of a commercial mp3 rare groove library - as example of vintage vinyl available in digital format - possibly expand on music licensing issues?)
 * Yworo:  20:21, 21 December 2010 3rd rm REF (remove spam disquised as reference)
 * Kary247: 22:36, 21 December 2010 Talk:Rare groove:''' “I am proposing adding an example of a rare groove digital library that sells rare groove in mp3 formats rather than vinyl as referred to in the article. There was a list of 3 rare groove record stores here as well but they have been deleted.”
 * —Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yworo:  20:21, 21 December 2010 3rd rm REF (remove spam disquised as reference)
 * Kary247: 22:36, 21 December 2010 Talk:Rare groove:''' “I am proposing adding an example of a rare groove digital library that sells rare groove in mp3 formats rather than vinyl as referred to in the article. There was a list of 3 rare groove record stores here as well but they have been deleted.”
 * —Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * don't you have anything better to do with you time, the point is that the link was posted on the discussion board as wikipedia suggests should be done, and has been listed here in some kind of lame attempt to win an edit war. What a waste of time.  Try to stick to one point or idea, the point is that the link was listed on the discussion board and now my user name has been listed here, which was not necessary.  This is a lame way to win an edit war.  Wikipedia clearly states that if you want to use an external link, place on the discussion board, which I did, and listing my user name here was not necessary as I was blocked anyway.  It is just so lame.--Kary247 (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No Kary247, the point is you're not telling the truth.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My user name has been listed here over at the proposed blacklist - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SBL  - and here and given that a block sufficiently resolved the situation, I feel that this relates more to edit warring, which is so pathetic.  Some kind of bot has been placed in connection with my user name which resolves to ip address adobe.com which is ridiculous. A simple block should have been the first step, particularly given that the discussion page was used to list the suggested site.  The editor who reverted me was warned by an admin. for edit warring.  The same editor listed my user name here and over at the black list place, on the same day the 22 December.  It is just so obviously a lame way to connect my user name with wikispam.  How mean.--Kary247 (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I was blocked for edit warring(NOT spam) at blocked for edit warring at 20.08 and yet the editor reported my user name here and at the proposed blacklist at 20.26, see Yworo listing at 20.26so what was the point of that, just being mean. I was blocked anyway, and as I have mentioned, so it is just mean and not following the suggested guidelines, to go and list my user name after I was blocked here and there regardless.  Also, given you were spoken to by an admin. about your inappropriate role in the edit warring, this implies that you disregarded admin. advice and continued to edit war by listing my user name.--Kary247 (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I see, WP:SBL is the "blacklist" you are referring to. As you're aware, your block was for 3RR, not for spam. However, you've subsequently earned another warning at that very same article, (Rare groove). You might want to be more explicit about what you mean by "sufficiently resolved the situation" because there's certainly a COI concern regarding your edits. For example, attempting to turn it into a redirect: 01:19, 29 December 2010.
 * I don't know what you mean about adobe.com? I know your Wicca Magazine suggests downloading adobe's reader: “ DOWNLOAD WICCA MAGAZINE EPUB FOR IPAD, KINDLE, SONY READER, PC. LAPTOP AND MORE ” and that when you returned from your 3RR block,you attempted to create an EPUB book article: 02:10, 26 December 2010, which is now a redirect to EPUB, (EPUB_book historyTalk:EPUB_book history).
 * After your first post to the article's talk page, a "discussion" followed: 00:15, 22 December 2010... revolving around your insistence that it's all some sort of copyright issue, and that was followed by a rather disingenuous "Compromise-Suggested re-wording" 19:28, 22 December 2010.
 * Yworo was kind enough to explain the correct issues involved, despite WP:IDHT on your part... Regardless, over Yworo's objection and WP:BURDEN/WP:ELBURDEN, you added citation spam (#6) to the article, yet again, but this time the link was to your "About Us" page: 11:25, 22 December 2010.
 * I personally haven't seen anything on your website that would lead me to believe you're licensed. It seems you have no policies posted at all... If I understand correctly, you create MP3s from vinyl and customers pay £0.55 per download.
 * In any case, Yworo removed the citation spam: 15:19, 22 December 2010. You then reinserted (#7) a citation that pointed directly to your home page: 19:19, 22 December 2010 and twenty minutes later, you switched it to an EL: 19:39, 22 December 2010.
 * Yworo removed it soon after: 20:03, 22 December 2010. You then reverted (#8) with the edit summary: "Undid revision 403755020 by Yworo (talk)issue is copyright, not spam, see discussion page" 20:48, 22 December 2010 and posted similarly to Yworo's talk page, informing him of the revert: 20:59, 22 December 2010.
 * At this time, you were blocked for 3RR: 21:08, 22 December 2010. Finally, Yworo removed the spam once again: 21:27, 22 December 2010.
 * You are selectively mischaracterizing what the admin said: 22:21, 22 December 2010.
 * Kary247, you had to work very hard for that WP:SBL. But these impossibly unilateral retrospectives on "the consensus", at article talk: 17:11, 27 December 2010; and user talk: 14:29, 28 December 2010; alienate everyone. You can't change the future if you're fighting the past.
 * —Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, My user name has been listed here over at the proposed blacklist - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SBL  - and here and given that a block sufficiently resolved the situation, I feel that this relates more to edit warring, which is so pathetic.  Some kind of bot has been placed in connection with my user name which resolves to ip address adobe.com which is ridiculous. A simple block should have been the first step, particularly given that the discussion page was used to list the suggested site.  The editor who reverted me was warned by an admin. for edit warring.  The same editor listed my user name here and over at the black list place, on the same day the 22 December.  It is just so obviously a lame way to connect my user name with wikispam.  How mean.


 * I was blocked for edit warring(NOT spam) at blocked for edit warring at 20.08 and yet the editor reported my user name here and at the proposed blacklist at 20.26, see Yworo listing at 20.26so what was the point of that, just being mean. I was blocked anyway, and as I have mentioned, so it is just mean and not following the suggested guidelines, to go and list my user name after I was blocked here and there regardless.  Also, given you were spoken to by an admin. about your inappropriate role in the edit warring, this implies that you disregarded admin. advice and continued to edit war by listing my user name.--Kary247 (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If the addition of the link has not resumed, then the issue is closed for now as far as this WikiProject is concerned. If it resumes again, it can be reported again later. The issue has been logged for future reference if needed - that's sufficient. The other issues brought up may be of concern to Wikipedia, but not to this WikiProject, and those potential issues should be discussed in other forums which focus on those issues - IF they are severe enough to warrant a discussion. Looking over the discussion, most of it appears to be rehashing issues from over a week ago. At this stage, I strongly recommend that all editors involved let go, and move on. If new issues come up, report it to the appropriate forum at that stage, but the prior behavior has already been resolved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is a claim of conflict of interest, then that should be submitted to WP:COIN.
 * If there's an issue with edit warring, then that should be reported to WP:AN3.
 * If there's an issue with incivility, then that should be taken to WP:WQA.
 * If there's an issue of article sourcing, then that should be taken to WP:RSN.
 * For general content disputes, see dispute resolution options.

eurocupshistory.com



 * Spammers
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/79.252.128.245
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/79.252.128.245
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/79.252.128.245


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/79.254.174.177
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/79.254.174.177


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


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


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


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


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


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



MER-C 07:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Moladi low cost housing 2

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


 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Related domains
 * redirects to blacklisted domain moladi.net
 * redirects to blacklisted domain moladi.net


 * Spammers

MER-C 10:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

vocley.com
Adsense pub-7336267833093116 Google Analytics UA-7276581




 * Spammers
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see


 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see

MER-C 02:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

nobleherb.com

 * link


 * accounts

Links to domain being spammed across several articles. -- Beloved Freak  10:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Continued:


 * Other spammers:


 * Spam pages:


 * See also:
 * Sockpuppet investigations/July6177


 * Possible knockoff spam. :( MER-C 07:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * MER-C 02:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated. MER-C 07:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Also:


 * Checkuser confirmed knockoff spam. MER-C 06:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Many external links on bird pages
There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds about a user who has added a lot of external links to one website, sometimes two links to different external web-pages on the same wiki page. I would be grateful for the opinion on these external links. Snowman (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a single user spam campaign,, who has spammed over 400 external links in about 250 different bird related articles since december 22. Arpit Deomurari is clearly in violation of WP:COI, see AVIS Team. user has ignored warnings and has not engaged in discussion. I've cleaned them up, if they return other measures should be considered. thanks --Hu12 (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really disappointing to see this actions and discussions...Although I'm affiliated to AVIS-IBIS website as a matter of fact it's my 10 years of work on Indian Birds Database...but I did this linking in Wikipedia Indian birds article in Good Faith only...My Future plan was to fetch more information where many articles are STUB or not much information from the links of AVIS-IBIS. thus I first thought to put a link to every Indian Bird Species Page and as and when time permits edit those article for more comprehensive information on the species. If everyone thinks it's spam I would revert all the changes I made to the articles. Being new to Wikipedia I might missed some points like remarks/summaries on edits etc. I had also started discussion on this topic as per the advice of (talk) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds
 * Arpit Deomurari (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Arpit Deomurari (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Bratz
This user has done nothing but add the same link to Bratz articles, going back almost four years now. Siawase (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

jorbit.com
Adsense pub-5558093088463741 Google Analytics UA-7732697




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


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



MER-C 08:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Generic Chinese knockoff spam 36.0

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

Watching my free time drain away on #wikipedia-en-spam is pretty depressing. MER-C 08:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bump. MER-C 00:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This domain appears dead. MER-C 04:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

datmaychu.net



 * Spammers
 * Spammed on Vietnamese Wikipedia, see vi:Special:Contributions/58.186.207.106
 * Spammed on Vietnamese Wikipedia, see vi:Special:Contributions/58.186.207.106


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see vi:Special:Contributions/113.161.71.107
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see vi:Special:Contributions/113.161.71.107


 * Spammer replaced existing citations
 * Spammer replaced existing citations


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see vi:Special:Contributions/113.161.71.105
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammed on Vietnamese Wikipedia, see vi:Special:Contributions/113.161.71.109
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see vi:Special:Contributions/113.161.71.30
 * Inline spammer, see
 * Inline spammer, see


 * Spammed on Vietnamese Wikipedia, see vi:Special:Contributions/113.162.169.17
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see vi:Special:Contributions/183.80.212.129
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see vi:Special:Contributions/183.80.212.129
 * Spammer replaced existing links



MER-C 07:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Generic Chinese knockoff spam 34.0

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed
 * redirects to:
 * redirects to:
 * redirects to:
 * redirects to:
 * redirects to:
 * redirects to:
 * redirects to:
 * redirects to:


 * redirects to:
 * redirects to:
 * redirects to:



"Why your price is expensive than other site?"
 * Similar domains

"(Continue to use Forbidden Cookies)"

domains already blacklisted:

"then we will send you all instructions, address to be sent back to us"

generic blacklisting rule:

"with the customer supreme service idea to ensure customer satisfaction"

"No, there won't be extra taxes for the custom."

domains already blacklisted:

"We recommend you to email us your problems as many issues can be fixed or adjusted by yourself."

generic blacklisting rule:

domains already blacklisted:


 * Spammers

Stupid exams. MER-C 10:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bump. MER-C 00:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Generic Chinese knockoff spam 35.0

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Similar domains

generic blacklisting rule:

"deal with the good quanlity"

"now you will recive a mail,and plsto check it"

generic blacklisting rule:

"The data transmission of bank system is abnormal"

generic blacklisting rule:

domains already blacklisted:


 * Spammers

Sigh. MER-C 08:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bump. MER-C 00:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

OPSWAT Inc. oesisok.com opswat.com


Both internal-link spam and WP:REFSPAM for this market-share measurement company. Typically adds a "Market share' section including an internal link to OPSWAT Inc. and laced with additional mentions of OPSWAT and external links to the site. --CliffC (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Did more cleanup. Seems they have been article spamming since 2008. heres more;


 * Article spam
 * Accounts
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Adsense related Poetry Spam
Adsense pub-8287404696718563
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

usefulwebtool.com
Adsense pub-0265864614856728
 * Accounts
 * Accounts


 * cross Wiki Accounts


 * fr:Special:Contributions/65.93.168.49
 * fr:Special:Contributions/70.55.64.93
 * fr:Special:Contributions/174.91.193.131
 * fr:Special:Contributions/174.91.193.192
 * vi:Special:Contributions/174.91.193.192

--Hu12 (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

buyerzone.com

 * Found this while doing some other cleanup. I don't have time to investigate or cleanup this one. If it wasn't spammed, most of the links still appear to fail WP:ELNO. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone cleaned this up. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone cleaned this up. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Another one, unrelated to buyerzone other than it needs investigation and cleanup. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Still working on this. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like some if it is competition for links. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've left two links not added by the editors listed above. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Another one, unrelated to buyerzone other than it needs investigation and cleanup. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Still working on this. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like some if it is competition for links. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've left two links not added by the editors listed above. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've left two links not added by the editors listed above. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Adsense 0659522543150107 Related
google_ad_client = "pub-0659522543150107"
 * Spam page
 * User:Ihavenet
 * Accounts
 * User:Ihavenet
 * Accounts

Long term and recent spamming of related sites.--Hu12 (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

globalchangetelevision.org


Also appears to have a COI, based on profile at http://gccalliance.org/profiles/members/43 --CliffC (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

nationalaglawcenter.org




Has added ~90 links. Farmjustice2010 got blocked indef this morning, and Agrichuck2010 was immediately registered and carried on adding links. - MrOllie (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Spam Articles
 * Related link
 * National Agricultural Law Center blog
 * More Accounts
 * --Hu12 (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Related link
 * National Agricultural Law Center blog
 * More Accounts
 * --Hu12 (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

graduateinjapan.com
Google Analytics UA-11990898-1


 * Previous incidents
 * Articles for deletion/Monbukagakusho Research Scholarship Preparation Guide


 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 08:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

alanrush.net

 * Article spam
 * Article spam


 * Articles for deletion/Alan rush
 * Accounts
 * Articles for deletion/Alan rush
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

also
 *  Them From  Space  04:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Automatic spam prevention
It would be nice if every article edit that contained a link went through an automated spam detection process. The spam script could check the link's title and description to see if the link is at all related to the article. If it's not, the script could stop the edit and flag the user as a spammer.

Also, I suggest (if this hasn't been done already) adding an invisible link to the left pane (invisible meaning it's there, but it cannot be seen or clicked on) to trick spambots into going to a page on the site that would then blacklist their IP address after they filled out a form field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonman239 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

paintedsouvenirs.com, ruxatranswrite.com


Looks like a linkspam-only account. Hans Adler 12:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

English Heritage Spamming
Registrant: English Heritage


 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

wax-plant.com Spamming blitz

 * Accounts
 * Accounts


 * Cross wiki spamming


 * http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
 * http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
 * http://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
 * http://sr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
 * http://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
 * http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
 * http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
 * http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
 * http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
 * http://hu.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
 * http://hsb.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
 * http://fi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
 * http://et.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
 * http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
 * http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
 * http://cs.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9
 * http://bg.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/76.108.209.9

--Hu12 (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Meta BL'd ✅--Hu12 (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

ahmedabadguide.in

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

letsgeteverything.com
'UA-18017240-1'

--Hu12 (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

LT Spamming of adsense related
Adsense google_ad_client = pub-1253043591735915
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts


 * Cross wiki spamming

Long term, multiple wiki spamming of adsense related sites--Hu12 (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/nl:Special:Contributions/86.90.87.37
 * http://vi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/86.90.87.37
 * http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/86.90.87.37
 * http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/86.90.87.37
 * http://id.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/86.90.87.37
 * http://hi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/86.90.87.37
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/86.90.87.37
 * http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/131.224.251.101
 * http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/131.224.251.101
 * http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/131.224.251.101
 * http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/131.224.251.101
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cassie72

ibscdc.org refspam campaign


The above user has begun adding refspam links to the "IBS Case Development Centre," which may or may not be affiliated with the "ICFAI Business School," which may or may not have operated as an unaccredited "institution" of "higher learning" from 1995 to 2008. The issue is that these "cases" link to pages where people are asked to put in their PayPal information. I can't see them adding anything of additional value to our articles, and I think it's fair to say they were added here solely to garner additional revenue as opposed to actually enhancing this encyclopedia. I'm going to remove them, but I think it would be appropriate to prevent that domain from being spammed further. jæs (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Continued today, under more IP's;
 * IBS Case Development Centre
 * google_ad_client = "pub-9369366136012926"
 * Accounts


 * Possibly related domain;
 * http://hu.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/220.227.252.147
 * http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/220.227.252.147
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/220.227.252.147
 * http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/220.227.252.147
 * http://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/220.227.252.147
 * google_ad_client = "pub-5809706078847320";
 * addthis_pub="si00019125"
 * --Hu12 (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Continued;
 * --Hu12 (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Continued again (220.225.239.77), IP temporarily blocked. If additions continue after block expires, blocking this adsense site should be considered--Hu12 (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Continued;
 * --Hu12 (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Continued again (220.225.239.77), IP temporarily blocked. If additions continue after block expires, blocking this adsense site should be considered--Hu12 (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Continued again (220.225.239.77), IP temporarily blocked. If additions continue after block expires, blocking this adsense site should be considered--Hu12 (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Global Agenda
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_Agenda http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_Agenda&diff=408105503&oldid=408105280 User is perpetually trying to add his advertisement:

[spam removed]

--Pereant antiburchius (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also.
 * Please note that reproducing the spam is counterproductive. MER-C 07:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook Ultimate MotorCycling fan page

 * Timestamp. MER-C 07:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

nanohub.org

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say such persistent spamming in spite of warnings normally would justify a block. This is a legitimate, potentially useful site, however; nanohub.org is apparently sponsored by the US National Science Foundation. In this case, I suggest having COIbot monitor the links so established users can still add them. I think the spamming is being done by one grad student at the University of Texas at El Paso.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

iAgora Europa, S.L advert spam
Adsense google_ad_client pub-5960084702414099
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

SEO'ing on Wikipedia since 2006.... --Hu12 (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

SABMiller plc spam

 * Possibly related
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2010_Archive_Jan_2
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Jojojohnson2/Archive


 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wonder id there is a relationship here Sockpuppet_investigations/Jojojohnson2/Archive? --Hu12 (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No. That's what I thought when I filed the report. It is more likely that this is some low-paid SEO spamming. MER-C 02:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

paleodietfoodlist.net

 * links


 * accounts

Repeated addition of link by multiple SPA accounts, including the use of misleading edit summaries. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

--Ronz (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Related links spammed by Segolyoda

The abcov method
Looks like COI who's only interest is to keep that article. -- Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 16:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Added link summary for tracking/reference. MER-C 03:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Added link summary for tracking/reference. MER-C 03:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

blog.zagat.com
It seems that this blog is heavily spammed on Wikipedia. I can see it being marginally useful in narrow circumstances : something like "Chef X won such and such award as voted on by Zagat readers" might be OK. But multiple IPs seems to be adding links to every Zagat blog post, whether it's really relevent or not. Any suggestions on what to do? Gnome de plume (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Related discussion at RSN --Ronz (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly WP:REFSPAM. These links seem to serve no real purpose other than to self promote the site zagat.com. Additionaly; Buisness can self edit their online profiles
 * Update information & stats
 * Submit photos
 * Visit your restaurant's Reviews & Stats page
 * Click on the Update or Add To This Information
 * I think this fails the specific requirements of our Reliable Sources guidelines.
 * --Hu12 (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Found more WP:REFSPAM IP's;
 * --Hu12 (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Added a few more IP's. I'm going to for now. Other measures may be necessary if continues. Makes one wonder about the root site (zagat.com);
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Added a few more IP's. I'm going to for now. Other measures may be necessary if continues. Makes one wonder about the root site (zagat.com);
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Casino/Irish car hire SEO spam



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


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links



MER-C 11:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

freedownloadgames.name i-watch-movies-online.com



 * Accounts

Be on the lookout for edits like this. (Toolserver xwiki is currently dead.) MER-C 11:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I now believe that this spam is a result of malware installed on the above users' computers. MER-C 12:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Generic Chinese knockoff spam 37.0


"We had been in the replica handbag business for many years finding the most convincing"
 * Similar domains

"Above all else, we are sure that the quality of our replica" __BLANK__ "is absolutely the highest"

"After you transferred the money, please Give us a message"


 * Spammers

Sigh. MER-C 07:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bump. MER-C 00:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Vero Ltd. spam

 * Amazon & links: F&T Press
 * (redirects to ftreligiouscatalogue.com)
 * (redirects to ftreligiouscatalogue.com)
 * (redirects to ftreligiouscatalogue.com)
 * (redirects to ftreligiouscatalogue.com)


 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

persian Talk spammer



 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

nestle.com spam

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

Spams "nestle.com/Brands/Pages/BrandsDetail.aspx?brandguid" ove multiple articles. Moving ones own links "UP" is never a sign of good faith.--Hu12 (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

banglacollege.com



 * Accounts

Looks like SEO of a reputable institution. MER-C 09:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * More WP:REFSPAM added today from 120.50.178.185--Hu12 (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * More WP:REFSPAM added today from 120.50.178.185--Hu12 (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

cazpiens.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

Registrant: Sanjeev S Pillai--Hu12 (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

onlyecig.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 08:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bump. MER-C 00:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I don't believe this is knockoff spam, this site's about us address is the same (but not verbatim) as the manufacturers. MER-C 03:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

techviewz.org (again)


This seems to be a very clearcut case of refspam, which was previously reported almost six months ago by User:CliffC. For whatever reason, despite repeated warnings, the report here, and a contribution history that strongly smacks of a wider campaign of promotional editing, User:Jaizovic has continued their spamming unabated. What can be done to stop them, and how can we have the "techviewz.org" and associated sites blacklisted (since they're both refspam and one big copyvio collection)? jæs (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed 22 of the 67 instances of the "techviewz.org" refspam, but there are 45 remaining links. I'll deal with the rest of those later today if nobody beats me to it, although it looks like that was not the only site User:Jaizovic was refspamming (see the other warnings on their talk page for more details).  jæs (talk)  12:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Adsense pub-0807029759842083
 * Additionally:


 * Related domains


 * Warned spam4, please report to AIV if spamming persists. MER-C 04:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Jaizovic linkspammed IPv6 today. The World IPv6 Day edit was arguable slightly useful (but inaccurate). --Cybjit (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * google_ad_client = ca-pub-0807029759842083
 * previousWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2010_Archive_Aug_2
 * There is no evidence of copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers so per WP:COPYRIGHT (external Web site appears to be carrying work in violation of the creator's copyright). IE,(techviewz.org/2010/04/review-of-vector-linux.html) scrapped from (techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/8-of-the-best-tiny-linux-distros-683552?artc_pg=4)
 * Linking to copyrighted works, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry ).--Hu12 (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Long term, multi-article WP:REFSPAMing adsense related sites. per WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, WP:LINKVIO and WP:RS ✅--Hu12 (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers so per WP:COPYRIGHT (external Web site appears to be carrying work in violation of the creator's copyright). IE,(techviewz.org/2010/04/review-of-vector-linux.html) scrapped from (techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/8-of-the-best-tiny-linux-distros-683552?artc_pg=4)
 * Linking to copyrighted works, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry ).--Hu12 (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Long term, multi-article WP:REFSPAMing adsense related sites. per WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, WP:LINKVIO and WP:RS ✅--Hu12 (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers so per WP:COPYRIGHT (external Web site appears to be carrying work in violation of the creator's copyright). IE,(techviewz.org/2010/04/review-of-vector-linux.html) scrapped from (techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/8-of-the-best-tiny-linux-distros-683552?artc_pg=4)
 * Linking to copyrighted works, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry ).--Hu12 (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Long term, multi-article WP:REFSPAMing adsense related sites. per WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, WP:LINKVIO and WP:RS ✅--Hu12 (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers so per WP:COPYRIGHT (external Web site appears to be carrying work in violation of the creator's copyright). IE,(techviewz.org/2010/04/review-of-vector-linux.html) scrapped from (techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/8-of-the-best-tiny-linux-distros-683552?artc_pg=4)
 * Linking to copyrighted works, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry ).--Hu12 (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Long term, multi-article WP:REFSPAMing adsense related sites. per WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, WP:LINKVIO and WP:RS ✅--Hu12 (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers so per WP:COPYRIGHT (external Web site appears to be carrying work in violation of the creator's copyright). IE,(techviewz.org/2010/04/review-of-vector-linux.html) scrapped from (techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/8-of-the-best-tiny-linux-distros-683552?artc_pg=4)
 * Linking to copyrighted works, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry ).--Hu12 (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Long term, multi-article WP:REFSPAMing adsense related sites. per WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, WP:LINKVIO and WP:RS ✅--Hu12 (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers so per WP:COPYRIGHT (external Web site appears to be carrying work in violation of the creator's copyright). IE,(techviewz.org/2010/04/review-of-vector-linux.html) scrapped from (techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/8-of-the-best-tiny-linux-distros-683552?artc_pg=4)
 * Linking to copyrighted works, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry ).--Hu12 (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Long term, multi-article WP:REFSPAMing adsense related sites. per WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, WP:LINKVIO and WP:RS ✅--Hu12 (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Long term, multi-article WP:REFSPAMing adsense related sites. per WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, WP:LINKVIO and WP:RS ✅--Hu12 (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

ozarkscivilwar.org

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

Spam adds them "above" the other links ....--Hu12 (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

ranch26bar.com

 * links


 * accounts

Repeated spamming of link, use of promotional wording and posting of copyvio image by SPA user. Reverted and warned by multiple users. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Red Squirrel spam

 * links


 * accounts

User(s) adding poorly written, POV, and promotional material - while also removing better written text and refs. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

theodore-roosevelt.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

Moving ones "own' linkUP and "'UP again" and Link vandalism, is never a sign of good faith--Hu12 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

classicfilmfreak.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

caraccessoriesandsoftware.co.uk megan-fox-website.com



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


 * Inline spammer, see
 * Inline spammer, see


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

MER-C 09:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

taximedia.com gossip-stone.com

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed




 * Spammers
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see


 * Citation spammer, see
 * Spammer replaced existing citations
 * Spammer replaced existing citations


 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see


 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see


 * Citation spammer, see
 * Spammer replaced existing citations
 * Spammer replaced existing citations


 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see


 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see

Tabloid grade source being refspammed into BLP celebrity articles. MER-C 11:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

desiweb.net

 * Related
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2010_Archive_May_1
 * Accounts
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2010_Archive_May_1
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Continued;
 * --Hu12 (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet again
 * BL'd--Hu12 (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BL'd--Hu12 (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BL'd--Hu12 (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

COI refSpamming

 * redirects to fangraphs.com
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

Adds links to articles created by by Steve Slowinski. Also is a redirecting site.--Hu12 (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

atlantikwall.co.uk

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

Seems to spam his site on forums quite a bit. --Hu12 (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)