Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive Aug 1

amiba.net

 * links


 * accounts

Repeated addition of news-aggragator link into multiple EL sections over more than a six month period. The site itself is for a non-profit whose stated goal is support of independent businesses; but most of the links are either self-generated press-releases, or are interpretations and/or summaries of news stories, or simple link directories. Existing uses of the site as a ref needs to be reviewed - and where appropriate the ref should be updated to point to the true source articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

login4stuff spam



 * Spammers

MER-C 11:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

tetraphones.com userpage spam



 * Spammers

MER-C 12:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

throbit.com

 * link


 * accounts


 * created article

Repeated addition of link to following deletion of its own article that failed to establish notability. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Esotouric.com spam
— Preceding unsigned comment added by AfadsBad (talk • contribs)
 * Timestamp. MER-C 12:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how this works, but I am in the field and cannot remove these spam links. Can someone do a search, remove the links, and explain the problem to the user? This user is advertising his/her business on Wikipedia, and the ads should be removed. Thank you, -AfadsBad (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Surfdome
Hi

I think this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfdome - violates Wikipedia guidelines by promoting the business and persons involved with the business. The subject is questionable talking about proposed plans. The rest of the entry just lists accolades of the business and links back to the website. I think this page should be removed from Wikipedia.

Thanks

Wayne

--Wsthompson (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * >I think this page should be removed from Wikipedia.
 * In which case, you can nominate it for deletion at Articles for deletion. MER-C 11:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

shaligram.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 11:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

repeated spam on Structured Settlement page
User:WarrenOutsky repeatedly inserts commercial spam into the page for Structured Settlements — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.200.40 (talk • contribs)
 * Timestamp. MER-C 13:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

articlescache.org
Is this a legit archiving site? I don't find much reference to it in Google - it doesn't appear to be related to 'articlecache.com'. added it to a number of articles recently. -- Versa geek  18:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * From just a bit of research, it looks more like a site attempting to get traffic from typo's. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)



Let's see if we can get a complete list of accounts, and see if we can get some comments from any of them. --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

For tracking purposes, there are currently 51 links --Ronz (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

There are no articles currently with the link that weren't edited by one or both of the two accounts already listed. --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

06:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Hello I wrote a spider that walks through the pages of Wikipedia, and look for broken links. Then I have to manually find and restore the information on these pages, upload them to my domain: articlescache.org, and I change a broken link on working. The project is non-profit and not aimed at SEOs, because the all outgoing links from wikipedia have the tag "nofollow". --Banzai6666 (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. So where are you finding the information that you are archiving? --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

In google's cache, in web.archive.org, or by title in google at the third sites, may be other variations. This is not an automatic process and the information for each case individually searched. Banzai6666 (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be adding the links, nor do I see these as useful archives when there are no resources behind them for even the most basic of creation/maintenance/etc. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I would indeed suggest that we use the established archiving sites (or have a mediawiki variety of it). People making personal mirrors is not the way forward. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Why broken links better than links on my archive, where all documents accessible? From the archive I'm doing a public archive with search and indexing. In 2 days my spider found more than 20,000 dead links on Wikipedia. I think - this is a problem, and my project is intended to solve this problem. Where can prove the seriousness of my intentions, and to obtain permission for the search and recovery of lost documents?Banzai6666 (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying that the broken links are better, I would just prefer that we use Archive.org or another established archiving service. Moreover, there is already a bot searching for dead links and finding the appropriate archives. As a third point, I think I read somewhere that MediaWiki is considering its own archiving service, which would be really the best solution for the references. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

change.org


Seems to be linked throughout mainspace, while large parts of this site are either plain partition space or blog space. Some accounts seem to be adding this throughout. We do have similar sites blanket blacklisted (per WP:SPAM/WP:SOAPBOX), and we might want to consider that here as well. Noting here as something that may need future attention, and I am considering to at least add this to XLinkBot to avoid the common 'click [here] to vote!' - type of statements (bit less worried about the references, though they should also not be there, as the petition is not notable to be mentioned if it is not backed up by secondary sources anyway). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

argusguide.com

 * links


 * accounts

Series of IPs whose only activity have been to insert linkspam into multiple articles, usually discuised as a "reference". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

northwestregisteredagent.com

 * links


 * page submittal
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Northwest Registered Agent


 * accounts

Repeated addition of spammy links since at least 2009 - originally primarilly as external links; later, in some cases disguised as references. The links fail both WP:RS and WP:EL. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

alibaba.com
A large marketing site. Can someone have time to look at this? Over 400 links, though most don't appear to be in article space. It could be that there's no organized spamming, but just individuals adding inappropriate links here and there. I doubt these links could ever be appropriate for external links or sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

medicotips.com


medicotips.com mostly added by. I deleted whatever I could find. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The user Logical Cowboy even don't open the links and mark them as spam... first ask him to check the links and then mark them... all the links are highly highly relevant and authentic. the website is also revceived the certificate of providing authentic health information from HON Foundation (Health on Net). Please wiki don't give every body the privilege to undo others work. This is very annoying. DAR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Any user who is reading article on wikipedia and go to those links that had been deleted by the above mentioned user will get useful information. all articles are highly related to wikipedia articles and website links are not just spam. Any other user can review them and give an honest opinion if he is not Logical Cowboy or his friend. DAR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This user is not letting me to use wikipedia...i am member of wikipedia since 2010 or 2009... and there are only 3-4 highly relevant links of medicotips.com from wikipedia.. how can you consider 3-4 links as spam. this is bullshitting. this user is forcing me to leave wikipedia. block me ok.... 3-4 highly relevant links are not considered as spam.. in whole wikipedia only 3-4 links are pointing toward article from medicotips.com. and all articles are highly relevant. . stop him or block me. . DAR (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * He said he has deleted whatever he could find. He has deleted only two relevant links of an authentic website and showing that he has done so much that he is tired. and he has marked them spam without even checking the links and done it only because i have added them.. Wikipedia should take notice of that. This is very discouraging act by this user Called Logical Cowboy. DAR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have read above comments also about the alibaba.com etc. all the links to these website were irrelevant and too much (more than 400). This is the website that can be marked as spam if only sufficient proof is available. User:Logical Cowboy has marked the medicotips.com as spam only because it has 3 highly relevant links from whole wikipedia.? is this is a criteria for marking a website as spam. This shows the height of immaturity from this user. edited by DAR (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Candicall re-added a bunch of links. These are WP:REFSPAM to a heavy-advertising website that generally lacks references and fails WP:MEDRS.  Editor appears to have a connection to website he is linking.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to believe this is a proper peer-reviewed journal. I just blocked the editor for persisting in spamming these links; certainly pending discussion that's improper, and they're edit-warring as well. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Louise Blouin Media, artinfo.com, blouinartinfo.com


Advice please! Some of this goes back to 2008, when User:JPLei systematically added many hundreds of links to artinfo.com. These additions were apparently discussed and clearly identified as citation spam here, but I don't see that any action was taken to remove the links. Recently, User:Antonyj0403 has been systematically changing those links to blouinartinfo.com. I have left a level 2 warning on his talkpage.

I have raised the connected question of conflict of interest of these two and five other editors apparently closely connected to Louise Blouin Media on the conflict of interest noticeboard.

Questions: should those links be removed? If so, how? Can a bot be asked to do that? Can/should the domain be blacklisted? Or am I just completely wrong about this? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The level 2 warning was ignored. I have left a level 3 warning on User talk:Antonyj0403. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The level 3 warning was ignored. I have left a final warning. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * G. Wayne Clough - when I was writing that article (a while ago) I found two artinfo refs to be a good discussion of the issues Clough has faced, and have thus restored the references to that article. Whatever user that was simply updated the url, something I would have had to do anyway when I took the article back to FAC. Disavian (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Antonyj0403This is to inform you that, the reason for changing the links from artinfo.com to blouinartinfo.com.

Earlier the site was with the domain name www.artinfo.com and now its moved to www.blouinartinfo.com. There are several old links which those pages are not available now. I was just correcting those links for better user experience and there is nothing spamming or wrong in this. These all links are connected to a informative article or news story which helps user to get additional information. I hope this makes the confusion clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonyj0403 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Antony! So do you or do you not have any professional or personal link with Louise Blouin Media? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone home?
I don't wish to be discourteous, but I wonder if there is anyone actually reading the spam reports that are left here? There's been no administrator response (that I have noticed) to any of the reports currently on the page, so I thought I'd look at some recently archived reports to see what action(s) had been taken there. But there aren't any recent archives either; the list of archives ends at 2012 Archive Dec 1. Is this project still active? I hope so! (note: I posted this here as it appears to be the talkpage of the project; please feel free to move it elsewhere if that was inappropriate) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Most stuff that gets reported does not require administrator attention (the reports are usually for record keeping with anything serious going straight to the blacklist), and you're kind of expected to get it yourself. I can't really be bothered to maintain the archive list any more. The backlog at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist says a lot. MER-C 13:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the answer. It'd be good to have some guidance how to do stuff yourself if that is what we are supposed to do. To take an example: there are currently I think about 900 spam links to artinfo.com and/or blouinartinfo.com (see Louise Blouin Media above). It seems that for those domains to blacklisted (which I'm anyway not sure is what should happen) those links must first be removed. Does that have to be done by hand? Or is there a bot that can be asked to do it? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I just revert all the spam, what's left tells you whether the domain is a good candidate for the blacklist. There's also Bots/Requests for approval/Cyberbot II 4. MER-C 02:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

SiteTalk spam entry
spam at SiteTalk_-_New_Way_of_Social_Networking. by — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonyj0403 (talk • contribs)
 * Page deleted, user warned. MER-C 13:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

edinburghvideoguide.com

 * links


 * accounts

Multiple SPAs whose only activity has been to post links to online video guide onto multiple articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

repeated promotional saudi arabia articles
-- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 02:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

thesqdw.org is an advertisement for PayDay loans...
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Comet--berkeley (talk • contribs)
 * Timestamp. MER-C 09:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

mealsfordiet.co

 * links


 * related articles


 * accounts

Multiple SPA accounts adding link and copyvio text into multiple articles over the past week. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * felt the need to blank this report. MER-C 13:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * felt the need to blank this report. MER-C 13:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

perfectgirls.net 4tube.com
Caution: NSFW.




 * Spammers

No redeeming value. MER-C 12:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

myorollers.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 10:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

EverLED.com/Shane5476
12:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

myorollers.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 10:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

EverLED.com/Shane5476
12:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)